52668 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 0612242886–7464–03; I.D. 

041307D] 

RIN 0648–AU68 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery 

Resources; American Fisheries Act 

Sideboards 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to 

implement Amendment 80 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP). Amendment 80 (hereinafter the 

‘‘Program’’) primarily allocates several 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) 

non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries 

among fishing sectors, and facilitates the 

formation of harvesting cooperatives in 

the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) 

trawl catcher/processor sector. The 

Program establishes a limited access 

privilege program (LAPP) for the nonAFA trawl catcher/processor sector. 

This action is necessary to increase 

resource conservation and improve 

economic efficiency for harvesters who 

participate in the BSAI groundfish 

fisheries. This action is intended to 

promote the goals and objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA), the FMP, and other applicable 

law. 

DATES: Effective on October 15, 2007, 

except amendments to § 679.2, the 

definition of ‘‘non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor,’’ § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(8), 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B), § 679.64(a)(1)(i)(A), 

§ 679.64(a)(1)(iii), § 679.64(a)(1)(v), 

§ 679.64(a)(1)(vi), § 679.64(a)(2), and 

§ 679.64(a)(3) that are effective on 

January 1, 2008; and amendments to 

§ 679.7(m), § 679.27(j), and 

§ 679.50(c)(6) that are effective on 

January 20, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 80, 

the final Environmental Assessment 

(EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA), and Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) for this action may be 

obtained from NMFS Alaska Region, 

P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, 

Attn: Ellen Sebastian, and on the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site at http:// 

www.fakr.noaa.gov. The proposed rule 

to implement Amendment 80 also may 

be accessed at this Web site. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this rule may 

be submitted to NMFS at the above 

address, and by e-mail to 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Glenn Merrill, 907–586–7228 or 

glenn.merrill@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

groundfish fisheries in the BSAI are 

managed under the FMP. The North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) prepared the FMP under the 

authority of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et 

seq. Regulations implementing the FMP 

appear at 50 CFR part 679. General 

regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 

appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

The Council took final action to 

recommend Amendment 80 on June 9, 

2006. The Council submitted 

Amendment 80 for review by the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in 

April 2007, and a notice of availability 

of the FMP amendment was published 

in the Federal Register on April 30, 

2007 (72 FR 21198), with comments on 

the FMP amendment invited through 

June 29, 2007. NMFS received one 

comment specific to Amendment 80. 

That comment has been addressed in 

the Response to Comments section 

below. On May 30, 2007, NMFS 

published a proposed rule to implement 

the Program (72 FR 30052). The public 

comment period on the proposed rule 

ended on July 29, 2006. NMFS received 

25 letters commenting on the proposed 

rule, including the letter submitted 

during the Amendment 80 comment 

period. These letters contained a total of 

82 unique comments. These comments 

are addressed in the Response to 

Comments section of this rule below. 

The Secretary approved Amendment 80 

on July 26, 2007. 

The Program allocates several BSAI 

non-pollock trawl groundfish species 

among trawl fishery sectors and 

facilitates the formation of harvesting 

cooperatives in the non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor sector. The Program 

meets the broad goals of (1) improving 

retention and utilization of fishery 

resources by the non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor fleet by extending the 

groundfish retention standard (GRS) to 

all non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

vessels; (2) allocating fishery resources 

among BSAI trawl harvesters in 

consideration of historic and present 

harvest patterns and future harvest 

needs; (3) establishing a LAPP for the 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processors and 

authorizing the allocation of groundfish 

species to harvesting cooperatives to 

encourage fishing practices with lower 

discard rates and to improve the 

opportunity for increasing the value of 

harvested species while lowering costs; 

and (4) limiting the ability of non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors to expand their 

harvesting capacity into other fisheries 

not managed under a LAPP. 

I. Development of the Program 

A. History of Bycatch and Discard 

Reduction Efforts in the BSAI 

The Council has long recognized the 

need to reduce bycatch, minimize 

waste, and improve utilization of fish 

resources to the extent practicable in 

order to provide the maximum benefit 

to present and future generations of 

fishermen, associated fishing industry 

sectors, communities, and the Nation as 

a whole. The Council has recommended 

and NMFS has approved and 

implemented numerous measures to 

reduce discards and bycatch of 

groundfish species over the past several 

years. 

The Council recommended and 

NMFS approved and implemented 

management measures to establish 

retention and utilization standards for 

pollock and Pacific cod under 

Amendment 49 to the FMP (62 FR 

63880; January 3, 1998). More recently, 

in June 2003, the Council recommended 

Amendment 79 to the FMP to improve 

retention of groundfish species by 

implementing the GRS. The Secretary 

approved Amendment 79 on August 31, 

2005, and NMFS published regulations 

to implement the GRS on April 6, 2006 

(71 FR 17362). The GRS will be effective 

on January 20, 2008. 

Amendment 79 authorizes the GRS as 

a tool for further increasing the 

retention and utilization of groundfish 

and responding to bycatch reduction 

goals described in the MSA National 

Standards (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)). The GRS 

balanced the requirements for 

conservation and management of the 

groundfish fisheries under the MSA 

with the requirements to minimize 

bycatch under National Standard 9 and 

minimize economic burdens under 

National Standard 7 to the extent 

practicable (minimize costs and avoid 

unnecessary duplication). The GRS 

currently applies to catcher/processor 

vessels using trawl gear that are greater 

than or equal to 125 ft (38.1 m) length 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52669 

overall (LOA) and not specifically 

defined as catcher/processors listed as 

eligible to participate in the directed 

pollock fishery under section 208(e) of 

the AFA. These catcher/processors are 

commonly referred to as non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors or head and gut 

catcher/processors. 

The Council’s analysis of groundfish 

retention rates in the BSAI groundfish 

fishery revealed that vessels in the nonAFA trawl catcher/processor sector had 

the lowest retained catch rates of any 

groundfish trawl fishery in the BSAI. 

This analysis also noted that non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors equal to or 

greater than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA 

contributed the majority of the harvest 

and discarded catch by the non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processor fleet. Given the 

smaller, but still considerable, 

proportion of overall bycatch and 

discard of groundfish by non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors less than 125 ft (38.1 

m) LOA to the overall bycatch and 

discard of groundfish by all non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors, and 

recognizing that compliance costs 

associated with observers and scale 

monitoring requirements would be 

relatively higher for vessels less than 

125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor vessels that are less 

than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA were excluded 

from the GRS. The GRS requires each 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

greater than or equal to 125 ft (38.1 m) 

LOA to retain specific groundfish 

species at a specified annual minimum 

rate. The annual minimum retention 

rate is lowest in 2008, the first year the 

GRS is effective, and is gradually 

increased to a maximum retention rate 

for 2011 and in all years thereafter. This 

graduated approach to increasing the 

minimum GRS rate was designed to 

facilitate industry compliance with the 

GRS by providing vessel operators 

several years to modify and adapt 

fishing operations. 

Amendment 80 and the implementing 

regulations continue initiatives by the 

Council and NMFS to reduce bycatch 

and discard of fish species in the BSAI 

non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries. 

The Program (1) extends the application 

of the GRS to non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor vessels of all sizes by 

including catcher/processor vessels less 

than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA; and (2) 

reduces the amount of halibut and crab 

bycatch, known as prohibited species 

catch (PSC), that may be taken while 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processors are 

groundfish fishing in the BSAI. These 

measures improve the utilization of 

fishery resources, minimize costs, and 

further minimize bycatch to the extent 

practicable, thereby meeting the 

objectives of the MSA National 

Standards 5, 7, and 9. 

The Program facilitates this improved 

retention and utilization of groundfish 

resources through specific economic 

incentives provided by a LAPP. It is 

anticipated that the LAPP will improve 

retention and utilization of fishery 

resources by allocating specific amounts 

of certain non-pollock groundfish 

species, halibut PSC, and crab PSC to 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processors; and 

facilitates the formation of cooperatives 

that will receive exclusive harvest 

privileges for a portion of these fishery 

resources. The ways in which the use of 

exclusive harvest privileges will 

improve the retention and utilization of 

fishery resources by non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors are described in 

Parts C and D of this section. 

B. Legislation Affecting the Program 

Congress granted NMFS additional 

specific statutory authority to manage 

BSAI groundfish fisheries under the 

FMP. Eligibility to participate in the 

Program and allocation of groundfish 

resources under the Program are 

affected by several pieces of recent 

legislation. 

• Section 219 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 

108–447; December 8, 2004), referred to 

in this rule as the Capacity Reduction 

Program (CRP), which defined the nonAFA trawl catcher/processor sector 

[Amendment 80 sector] and 

implemented a capacity reduction 

program for several catcher/processor 

sectors; 

• Section 416 of the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 

(Pub. L. 109–241; July 11, 2006), 

referred to in this rule as the Coast 

Guard Act, which amended provisions 

of the Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) Program in the MSA; and 

• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109–479, 

January 12, 2007), referred to in this rule 

as the MSRA, which modified 

provisions related to the CDQ Program 

and instituted other measures 

applicable to LAPPs. 

These pieces of legislation directly 

dictate specific elements of the Program. 

The preamble of the proposed rule 

details the effects of the CRP, Coast 

Guard Act, and MSRA on the 

development of the Program and this 

rule; therefore, that discussion is not 

repeated here (see 72 FR 30052; May 30, 

2007). 

C. The Non-Pollock Trawl Groundfish 

Fisheries 

One of the primary reasons for the 

relatively high discard rates of 

groundfish by non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors is the nature of the fisheries 

in which those vessels participate. The 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector 

primarily participates in non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries. The non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries are primarily 

comprised of groups of species that 

share similar habitat (e.g., flatfish 

fisheries such as rock sole, flathead sole, 

and yellowfin sole). Because these 

species occur together, they are 

typically harvested together. When a 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

retrieves its net, very often multiple 

species of fish are present. If a vessel 

operator is targeting only one species of 

fish, and other species are retrieved 

along with the desired catch, the vessel 

operator may have an incentive to 

discard the less valuable species and 

retain only the higher value species. The 

multi-species nature of these fisheries 

makes it difficult for vessel operators to 

target only one species, and an 

economic incentive is created to discard 

less valuable fish. 

NMFS establishes a total allowable 

catch (TAC) for each of the non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries based on the 

species’ annual biomass with the goal of 

providing a conservatively managed 

sustainable yield. Harvesters compete 

for the TAC, resulting in a ‘‘race for 

fish,’’ wherein vessels attempt to 

maximize their harvest in as little time 

as possible, in order to claim as large a 

share as possible of the available TAC. 

This race for fish increases the 

economic incentive to discard less 

valuable species in a multi-species 

harvest, and accelerates the harvest rate 

for the more valuable species. 

Because vessel operators are 

competing with each other for harvest of 

a common TAC, a vessel operator has 

little economic incentive to undertake 

actions to reduce unwanted incidental 

catch, such as searching for fishing 

grounds with lower bycatch rates, or 

using gear modifications that may 

reduce bycatch but have lower harvest 

rates, if those actions would limit the 

ability of that vessel to effectively 

compete with other vessels. 

Additionally, a vessel operator has little 

incentive to process and store less 

valuable species if by doing so, he loses 

an opportunity to use that processing or 

storage capacity for more valuable catch. 

Therefore, an individual vessel operator 

has strong incentives to harvest fish as 

quickly as possible, and discard less 

valuable species before the TAC limit is 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52670 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

reached because all vessel operators are 

competing for a limited TAC. 

Additionally, non-pollock groundfish 

fisheries are constrained by catch limits 

for non-target species, such as halibut, 

red king crab, Tanner crab 

(Chionoecetes bairdi), and snow crab (C. 

opilio). Halibut and crab are harvested 

in other fisheries and cannot be retained 

by vessels using trawl gear. NMFS 

establishes PSC limits for halibut in the 

entire BSAI, and red king crab, C. opilio 

crab, and C. bairdi crab in specific areas 

of the BSAI to limit the adverse impact 

of harvesting operations on the longterm productivity of those species. 

NMFS monitors these PSC limits, and 

may close or otherwise restrict trawl 

harvests if PSC limits are projected to be 

reached. Fishery closures due to 

reaching PSC limits can limit harvest of 

the groundfish TAC and reduce overall 

revenue to vessel operators and crew. 

As vessel operators seek to maximize 

harvest of TAC, they may accelerate 

fishing operations to maximize harvest 

before a crab or halibut PSC limit is 

reached. A ‘‘race for PSC’’ further 

exacerbates competition and the 

incentives to harvest rapidly, resulting 

in greater potential waste and higher 

discard rates of less valuable groundfish 

species. 

The multi-species nature of nonpollock groundfish fisheries further 

limits the ability of a fisherman to 

specifically target valuable groundfish 

species as they race with their 

competitors. Vessel operators may 

discard considerable portions of their 

catch to maximize harvests of more 

valuable species even though the 

discarded species may still have 

considerable market value. 

D. Limited Access Privilege Programs 

(LAPPs) 

The primary method to offset the 

economic incentives that lead to a race 

for fish and relatively high discard rates 

is to reduce the impact of those 

incentives through a LAPP. LAPPs have 

been used extensively in the North 

Pacific as a means to encourage 

economic efficiency and less wasteful 

harvest methods, and to resolve 

allocation disputes among harvesters by 

providing a group of harvesters with 

exclusive harvest privileges that can be 

traded. North Pacific LAPPs include (1) 

the Halibut and Sablefish individual 

fishing quota (IFQ) Program (58 FR 

59375; November 9, 1993); (2) the AFA 

(67 FR 69692; December 30, 2002); (3) 

the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program 

(70 FR 10174; March 2, 2005); and (4) 

the Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) 

Rockfish Program (71 FR 67210; 

November 20, 2006). An extensive 

discussion of LAPPs can be found in the 

EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action 

and in the National Research Council’s 

publication Sharing the Fish, which was 

consulted and considered during the 

development of the Program. 

A LAPP allows vessel operators to 

make operational choices to reduce 

discards of fish because the strong 

incentives to maximize catch in the 

minimum amount of time have been 

reduced. If a vessel operator receives an 

exclusive portion of the TAC for nonpollock groundfish species and the 

associated halibut and crab PSC, he 

knows that he need not compete with 

other harvesters. That vessel operator 

can then choose to fish in a slower and 

less wasteful fashion, use modified gear 

with a lower harvest rate but which 

reduces bycatch, coordinate with other 

vessel operators to avoid areas of high 

bycatch, process fish in ways that yield 

increased value but which are possible 

only by slowing the processing rate, or 

otherwise operate in ways that limit 

bycatch. The examples cited in this 

paragraph have been used by vessel 

operators in other LAPPs in the North 

Pacific, and NMFS anticipates non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors would use 

similar techniques to reduce bycatch 

and improve the value of their product. 

LAPPs can improve the profitability 

of fishing operators holding the 

exclusive harvest privilege. In most 

cases, LAPPs provide harvesters greater 

flexibility in tailoring their fishing 

operations to specific fisheries which 

can reduce operational costs. 

Additionally, vessel operators may 

reduce costs by avoiding costly 

improvements in vessel size or fishing 

power designed to outcompete other 

harvesters. Slower fishing rates can 

improve product handling and quality 

and increase the exvessel price of 

product. Vessel operators can also 

choose to consolidate less profitable 

fishing operations onto one vessel. 

Other potential advantages to the 

holders of exclusive harvest privileges 

have been analyzed during the 

development of past LAPPs. 

LAPPs can increase the costs of 

entering the fishery substantially 

because the permits acquire value and 

must be purchased prior to entry. 

Consolidation can limit employment 

opportunities as well. Compliance costs 

can also increase to ensure that NMFS 

can monitor the harvesting and 

processing of fish. Administration of 

LAPPs typically requires greater effort 

and cost than non-LAPP fisheries due to 

the greater precision in catch accounting 

required to track the harvest of fish and 

to ensure proper debiting of accounts. 

Participants in LAPPs may also use their 

excess fishing capacity to expand 

operations into other fisheries that are 

not managed by LAPPs and increase the 

race for fish in those fisheries unless 

they are constrained. These effects and 

others have been addressed in the 

design of previous LAPPs by limiting 

the amount of consolidation in the 

LAPP fishery and by limiting the 

harvest of species in non-LAPP 

fisheries. Entry costs for any LAPP are 

likely to be higher than in other nonLAPP fisheries, and those costs limit the 

ability of those operators lacking the 

financial wherewithal to participate in 

these fisheries. A loan program for entry 

level participants has been authorized 

and established in the Halibut and 

Sablefish IFQ Program to assist entry 

into that LAPP, but fishery participants 

in other LAPPs must rely on other 

sources of financing. A loan program 

has not been authorized for the Program. 

Based on extensive experience with 

past LAPPs, and after weighing 

potential advantages and disadvantages, 

the Council adopted the Program to 

create economic incentives that provide 

additional opportunities to reduce 

bycatch while increasing the potential 

for greater economic returns to those 

holding the harvest privileges. The 

Program provides an incentive for nonAFA trawl catcher/processors to harvest 

certain species of non-pollock 

groundfish in a less wasteful manner by 

granting an exclusive harvest privilege 

to a limited number of harvesters. The 

Program encourages participants to 

harvest more efficiently and less 

wastefully by allowing them to join 

other harvesters to form harvesting 

cooperatives that will receive an 

exclusive annual harvest privilege of 

specific groundfish species. Those 

participants that do not join a harvesting 

cooperative may fish in a limited access 

fishery. The principal benefits from the 

Program would be realized by harvesters 

that choose to join a cooperative. 

E. LAPPs, GRS, and Reduced PSC 

The Council also recognized that 

some of the compliance costs associated 

with the GRS, particularly for non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors less than 125 ft 

(38.1 m) LOA could be reduced under 

LAPP management. The Council 

recognized that if harvesters could 

apply the GRS to a cooperative by 

aggregating the retention rate of all 

vessels assigned to a cooperative, 

owners of non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA 

could choose to join a cooperative, 

assign their harvest privilege to the 

cooperative, and allow other larger 

vessels to harvest the cooperative’s 

exclusive allocation of fish without 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52671 

incurring the compliance costs 

associated with monitoring the GRS. 

Non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA 

would still receive economic benefits 

from the cooperative’s harvests but 

would not need to refit their vessels to 

meet the additional monitoring and 

enforcement (M&E) requirements and 

pay the additional costs to fish in the 

BSAI. Those vessels could continue to 

participate in other fisheries in the 

GOA. Furthermore, the catch associated 

with smaller non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor vessels that are used to fish in 

the BSAI would be subject to the GRS, 

thereby further improving retention of 

groundfish and reducing discards of 

fish. 

Additionally, for those non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor vessels that do fish 

under a cooperative’s exclusive harvest 

privilege, the costs associated with 

retaining less valuable fish under the 

GRS may be offset by increased 

profitability from those vessels because 

they are no longer operating in a race for 

fish. The Council considered these 

factors in recommending that the GRS 

be extended to all non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors under the Program. 

The Council also recognized that 

LAPP management under a cooperative 

allocation can encourage lower bycatch 

as described in Part D of this section. 

Because vessel operators in cooperatives 

are better able to target catch and can 

engage in voluntary agreements to avoid 

areas with higher PSC, the Council 

recommended an overall reduction in 

the amount of halibut and crab PSC that 

may be used by the non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor sector. The Program 

incorporates this recommendation, 

furthering the Council’s goals of 

reducing bycatch and discards of fishery 

species. 

F. Program Overview 

As noted earlier, the Council adopted 

the Program to meet the broad goals of 

(1) improving retention and utilization 

of fishery resources; (2) allocating 

fishery resources among BSAI trawl 

harvesters; (3) establishing a LAPP for 

the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors; 

and (4) limiting the ability of non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors to expand their 

harvesting capacity into other fisheries 

not managed under a LAPP. 

As with all other LAPPs in the North 

Pacific, the extensive changes to 

existing management of BSAI nonpollock trawl fisheries implemented by 

the Program affects a wide range of 

fishing practices and regulations. The 

Program affects management of the nonAFA trawl catcher/processors, other 

BSAI trawl fishery participants, and 

other harvesters in the North Pacific. As 

such, the Program implements a 

complex suite of measures to ensure the 

goals of the Program are met and to 

minimize potential adverse impacts on 

affected fishery participants. 

The rationale behind specific aspects 

of the Program are summarized below 

and described in detail in the preamble 

to the proposed rule (72 FR 30052; May 

30, 2007). 

1. Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) Program 

The Program incorporates statutory 

mandates in the MSA as amended by 

Section 416 of the Coast Guard Act and 

the MSRA. The rule modifies the 

percentage of TAC for directed fisheries 

that are allocated to the CDQ Program, 

the percentage of halibut, crab, and nonChinook salmon PSC allocated to the 

CDQ Program as prohibited species 

quota (PSQ), and includes other 

provisions necessary to bring 

Amendment 80 and the CDQ Program 

into compliance with applicable law. 

2. Amendment 80 Sector and 

Amendment 80 Vessels 

Eligible Program participants are 

defined by applicable legislation and 

the Program. Applicable legislation is 

summarized in Part B of this section of 

this preamble. The Program 

incorporates statutory mandates in 

section 219 of the CRP which defines 

who is eligible to harvest fish in the 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector 

for a defined list of non-pollock 

groundfish species. The Program defines 

the ‘‘Amendment 80 sector’’ as nonAFA trawl catcher/processor harvesters 

eligible to fish under this statutory 

mandate. The defined list of non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processor vessels that may 

be used to fish in the Amendment 80 

sector are ‘‘Amendment 80 vessels.’’

3. Amendment 80 Species 

The Program allocates a specific 

portion of six non-pollock groundfish 

species among trawl fishery sectors. 

These six species are the ‘‘Amendment 

80 species’’ and include Aleutian 

Islands (AI) Pacific ocean perch (POP), 

BSAI Atka mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, 

BSAI Pacific cod, BSAI rock sole, and 

BSAI yellowfin sole. These Amendment 

80 species are allocated between the 

Amendment 80 sector and all other 

BSAI trawl fishery participants not in 

the Amendment 80 sector. These other 

trawl fishery participants include AFA 

catcher/processors, AFA catcher vessels, 

and non-AFA catcher vessels. 

Collectively, this group of trawl fishery 

participants comprises the ‘‘BSAI trawl 

limited access sector.’’

Amendment 80 species are 

economically valuable and have 

historically been targeted by non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors, but fisheries 

associated with these species have high 

rates of discard or waste relative to other 

groundfish fisheries. Other species, such 

as Alaska plaice, are occasionally 

harvested in the BSAI trawl fisheries, 

but these other species are a minor 

component of the overall biomass and 

value of non-pollock groundfish 

harvested, less subject to an intense race 

for fish, and are not allocated under the 

Program. 

4. Allocations of TAC and PSC in the 

BSAI Trawl Fisheries 

Each year, the Program will allocate 

an amount of Amendment 80 species 

available for harvest, called the initial 

total allowable catch (ITAC), and crab 

and halibut PSC to two defined groups 

of trawl fishery participants: (1) The 

Amendment 80 sector; and (2) the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. Allocations 

made to one sector are not subject to 

harvest by participants in the other 

fishery sector except under a specific 

condition: fish that are allocated to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector and 

projected to be unharvested could be 

reallocated to Amendment 80 

cooperatives. 

The ITAC represents the amount of 

TAC for each Amendment 80 species 

that is available for harvest after 

allocations to the CDQ Program and the 

incidental catch allowance (ICA) have 

been subtracted from the TAC. The ICA 

is set aside for the incidental harvest of 

an Amendment 80 species while 

targeting other groundfish species in 

non-trawl fisheries (e.g., yellowfin sole 

incidental harvests in the hook-and-line 

Pacific cod fishery) and in the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector fisheries 

(e.g., rock sole incidentally harvested by 

AFA trawl catcher vessels in the Pacific 

cod fishery). 

The Program will allocate crab and 

halibut PSC to the Amendment 80 and 

BSAI trawl limited access sectors to 

accommodate PSC use by these sectors 

based on past PSC use with specific 

consideration given to possible future 

requirements. As explained earlier, the 

Program further addresses the Council’s 

goals of reducing bycatch and discard of 

groundfish species by reducing the total 

amount of crab and halibut PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. 

5. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector 

The Program provides a specific 

allocation of Amendment 80 species 

and crab and halibut PSC to this sector. 

The Program modifies the calculation of 

AFA sideboard limits for Amendment 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52672 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

80 species and crab and halibut PSC 

limits necessary to allow the efficient 

operation of AFA vessels. The Program 

also adjusts the maximum limit for red 

king crab bycatch in the Red King Crab 

Savings Subarea. 

6. Amendment 80 Quota Share 

The Program assigns Amendment 80 

quota share (QS) for Amendment 80 

species based on catch by Amendment 

80 vessels. The Amendment 80 QS 

could be used to yield an exclusive 

harvest privilege for a portion of the 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC. The 

Program establishes criteria for 

harvesters in the Amendment 80 sector 

to apply for and receive QS, initially 

allocate QS, and transfer QS. 

The Program assigns Amendment 80 

QS based on historic catch patterns of 

an Amendment 80 vessel during 1998 

through 2004 and on the relative 

proportion of an Amendment 80 species 

harvested by an Amendment 80 vessel 

compared to all other Amendment 80 

vessels. 

The Program will assign Amendment 

80 QS only to persons who submit a 

timely and complete application for 

Amendment 80 QS. In most cases, the 

Program will assign the Amendment 80 

QS to the Amendment 80 vessel owner. 

In specific cases where an Amendment 

80 vessel has been lost or is otherwise 

permanently ineligible to fish in U.S. 

waters, the Program will assign the 

Amendment 80 QS to the holder of the 

license limitation program (LLP) license 

originally assigned to that Amendment 

80 vessel. Once Amendment 80 QS is 

assigned based on the historic catch 

patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel, it 

cannot be divided or transferred 

separately from that Amendment 80 

vessel. If the Amendment 80 QS is 

assigned to the LLP license originally 

issued for that Amendment 80 vessel, it 

cannot be transferred separately from 

that LLP license. 

7. Amendment 80 Cooperatives 

Persons that receive Amendment 80 

QS can join a cooperative to receive an 

exclusive harvest privilege for a portion 

of the ITAC. Amendment 80 QS holders 

can form a cooperative with other 

Amendment 80 QS holders on an 

annual basis, provided they meet 

specific criteria. Each Amendment 80 

cooperative will receive an annual 

cooperative quota (CQ), an amount of 

Amendment 80 species ITAC that will 

be for the exclusive use by that 

cooperative for harvest in a given year. 

The Program establishes requirements 

for forming an Amendment 80 

cooperative with other Amendment 80 

QS holders, the allocation of annual CQ 

to a cooperative, and transfers of CQ 

among cooperatives. 

A cooperative will receive an amount 

of CQ equivalent to the proportion of QS 

held by all of the members of the 

cooperative relative to the total QS held 

by all Amendment 80 QS holders. Each 

Amendment 80 cooperative will receive 

an annual CQ with an exclusive limit on 

the amount of crab and halibut PSC the 

cooperative can use while harvesting in 

the BSAI. This crab and halibut PSC CQ 

will be assigned to a cooperative 

proportional to the amount of 

Amendment 80 QS held by the 

members, and will not be based on the 

amount of crab or halibut PSC 

historically used by the cooperative 

members. This provision does not 

reward harvesters with high PSC rates 

with large amounts of PSC CQ. Instead, 

PSC CQ will be issued in proportion to 

the amount of Amendment 80 species 

CQ that are assigned to a cooperative for 

harvest. 

The Program provides opportunities 

for Amendment 80 sector participants to 

trade harvest privileges among 

cooperatives to further encourage 

economically efficient fishing 

operations. An Amendment 80 

cooperative will not be able to transfer 

CQ to the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery or to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. 

A cooperative structure may allow 

Amendment 80 vessel operators to 

manage PSC rates more efficiently. By 

reducing PSC through more efficient 

cooperative operations, such as through 

gear modifications, or by coordinating 

fishing operations to fish in areas with 

lower PSC use rates, Amendment 80 

vessel operators also may increase the 

harvest of valuable targeted groundfish 

species and improve revenues that 

would otherwise be foregone if a fishery 

were closed due to reaching PSC limits. 

The Program allows Amendment 80 

cooperatives to receive a rollover of an 

additional amount of CQ, if a portion of 

the Amendment 80 species or crab or 

halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector is projected to go 

unharvested. This rollover to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives is at the 

discretion of NMFS with consideration 

given to projected harvest rates in the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector and 

other criteria. Each Amendment 80 

cooperative will receive an additional 

amount of CQ that is based on the 

proportion of the Amendment 80 QS 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative as compared with the 

amount of Amendment 80 QS assigned 

to all other Amendment 80 

cooperatives. 

Fishery participants in a cooperative 

can consolidate fishing operations on a 

specific Amendment 80 vessel or subset 

of Amendment 80 vessels, thereby 

reducing M&E and other operational 

costs. This will allow cooperative 

members to harvest fish in a manner 

more likely to be economically efficient 

and less wasteful. 

8. Amendment 80 Limited Access 

Fishery 

Amendment 80 QS holders that do 

not join an Amendment 80 cooperative 

can participate in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. The Program will 

assign to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery the amount of the 

Amendment 80 sector’s allocation of 

Amendment 80 species ITAC and crab 

and halibut PSC that remains after 

allocation to all of the Amendment 80 

cooperatives. Participants fishing in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

will continue to compete with each 

other; will not realize the same potential 

benefits from consolidation and 

coordination; and will not receive an 

exclusive harvest privilege that accrues 

to members of an Amendment 80 

cooperative. NMFS will manage the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

similar to the way the fisheries were 

managed prior to implementation of the 

Program. 

9. Use Caps 

The Council considered the effect of 

consolidation resulting from the 

allocation of an excessive share of 

harvest privileges to Amendment 80 

cooperatives. In response, the Program 

implements use caps to limit the 

amount of Amendment 80 QS a person 

can hold, the amount of CQ they can 

use, and the amount of ITAC an 

Amendment 80 vessel can harvest. 

These use caps moderate some of the 

potentially adverse effects of excessive 

consolidation of fishing operations on 

fishery participants, such as lost 

employment opportunities for fishing 

crew, while recognizing the desire to 

provide economic efficiencies to 

Amendment 80 QS holders. 

10. GOA Sideboard Limits 

GOA sideboard limits are catch limits 

that restrict the ability of participants 

eligible for this Program to expand their 

harvest efforts in the GOA. The Program 

is designed to provide certain economic 

advantages to participants. Program 

participants could use this economic 

advantage to increase their participation 

in other fisheries, primarily in the GOA 

fisheries, adversely affecting the 

participants in those fisheries. 

Therefore, the Program limits the total 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52673 

amount of catch in other groundfish 

fisheries that could be taken by 

Amendment 80 vessels, including 

harvests made in State of Alaska (State) 

waters that are open during Federal 

fishing seasons to allow the harvest of 

fish assigned to the Federal TAC—

commonly known as the ‘‘parallel’’

groundfish fisheries. GOA groundfish 

and halibut PSC sideboards will limit 

the catch by Amendment 80 vessels to 

historic levels in the GOA. 

Sideboards limit harvest of Pacific 

cod, pollock, and rockfish fisheries in 

the GOA, the eligibility of Amendment 

80 vessels to participate in GOA flatfish 

fisheries, and the amount of halibut PSC 

that Amendment 80 vessels could catch 

when harvesting groundfish in the GOA. 

Sideboards apply to all Amendment 80 

vessels, with a limited exemption for 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE. 

11. M&E Provisions 

M&E provisions are necessary for 

accurate catch accounting and 

compliance with the Program to ensure 

that Amendment 80 QS holders 

maintain catches within annual CQ and 

ITAC allocations in the BSAI and do not 

exceed sideboard limits in the GOA. 

The M&E measures established for the 

Program are similar to those currently 

required for compliance with 

Amendment 79, and mirror those in 

place for catcher/processor vessels 

participating in the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program (see regulations in 

§ 679.84 for additional detail). 

12. GRS Requirements 

Under the Program, all non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor vessels, which 

includes all Amendment 80 vessels 

regardless of size, are required to meet 

GRS requirements in the BSAI. For 

Amendment 80 vessels harvesting in the 

BSAI under the authority of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative, GRS 

requirements apply collectively to all 

vessels harvesting under the authority of 

the cooperative rather than on a vesselspecific basis. In other words, an 

Amendment 80 cooperative is required 

to meet the GRS on an aggregate basis 

for all vessels in the Amendment 80 

cooperative. The Program modifies 

some of the GRS provisions scheduled 

for implementation on January 20, 2008 

(71 FR 17362; April 6, 2006). 

Specifically, the Program modifies the 

GRS by extending the GRS to all nonAFA trawl catcher/processor vessel 

sizes and calculating the GRS for 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative on an 

aggregate basis. 

13. Economic Data Report (EDR) 

The Program implements an 

economic data collection program to 

assess the impacts of Amendment 80 on 

various components of the fishery, 

including skippers and crew. The 

Program establishes a process for 

collecting and reviewing economic data 

generated under Amendment 80 by 

requiring the annual submission of an 

EDR from each Amendment 80 QS 

holder. 

II. Summary of Regulation Changes in 

Response to Public Comments 

This section provides a summary of 

the major changes made to the final rule 

in response to public comments on the 

proposed rule. All of the specific 

changes, and the reasons for making 

them, are described under the Response 

to Comments section below. The 

changes are described by their 

corresponding regulatory section. 

Additional changes to the proposed 

regulatory text made by NMFS and not 

in response to public comment are 

discussed under Section IV of the 

preamble. 

Section 679.2 

• NMFS modified the definitions of 

an ‘‘Amendment 80 LLP license’’ to 

remove a reference to a specific list of 

LLP licenses in Column C of Table 31 

to Part 679, include LLP licenses that 

designate Amendment 80 vessels at any 

time after the effective date of the rule, 

and include an LLP license to which an 

Amendment 80 QS permit has been 

affixed (i.e., an Amendment 80 QS/LLP 

license). 

• NMFS redefined the term 

‘‘Amendment 80 LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel’’

as the term ‘‘LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel.’’

Section 679.7 

• In § 679.7(o)(1), (o)(4), and (o)(5), 

NMFS made several modifications to (1) 

allow the receipt and processing of 

unsorted catch from the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery onboard 

Amendment 80 vessels; (2) allow the 

use of Amendment 80 vessels to catch 

and process fish allocated to the CDQ 

Program; (3) prohibit Amendment 80 

vessels assigned to one Amendment 80 

cooperative from receiving and 

processing unsorted catch from 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to 

another Amendment 80 cooperative or 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery; and (4) prohibit Amendment 80 

vessels assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery from receiving 

and processing unsorted catch from 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to any 

Amendment 80 cooperative. 

• NMFS removed the prohibition at 

§ 679.7(o)(2), added a prohibition at 

paragraph (o)(2)(i) to prohibit a person 

from designating any vessel other than 

an Amendment 80 vessel on an 

Amendment 80 LLP license, and added 

a prohibition at paragraph (o)(2)(ii) to 

prohibit a person from failing to 

designate an Amendment 80 vessel on 

an Amendment 80 LLP license endorsed 

for groundfish in the Bering Sea subarea 

or Aleutian Islands subarea with a 

catcher/processor designation at all 

times during a calendar year unless that 

Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an 

actual total loss, constructive total loss, 

or is permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108. 

• In § 679.7(o)(3)(i), NMFS clarified 

that a person may not hold Amendment 

80 QS assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel unless that person holds an 

Amendment 80 LLP license endorsed 

for groundfish in the Bering Sea subarea 

or Aleutian Islands subarea with a 

catcher/processor designation that 

designates that Amendment 80 vessel. 

• In § 679.7(o)(3), NMFS added a new 

paragraph (o)(3)(iii) to clarify that a 

person may not hold an Amendment 80 

QS permit assigned to an Amendment 

80 vessel if that Amendment 80 vessel 

has suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108, after October 15 in the calendar 

year following the date of that vessel’s 

loss or ineligibility. 

• In § 679.7(o)(4), (o)(5), and (o)(6), 

NMFS clarified that (1) a valid copy of 

a CQ or Amendment 80 limited access 

permit must be maintained onboard an 

Amendment 80 vessel while fishing in 

the BSAI; and (2) M&E provisions 

established in the Program for 

Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the 

BSAI and GOA do not apply when an 

Amendment 80 vessel is used to 

directed fish for scallops using dredge 

gear. 

Section 679.50 

• In § 679.50(a)(8) and (c)(6), NMFS 

clarified that observer coverage 

requirements apply to any Amendment 

80 vessel fishing for groundfish in the 

BSAI. This clarification is necessary to 

meet the clear intent of the Program to 

apply a specific standard of observer 

coverage to all Amendment 80 vessels 

when they are fishing for groundfish in 

the BSAI. 

• NMFS modified § 679.50(c)(6) to 

clarify that observer coverage in the 

BSAI and GOA required under the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52674 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Program would not apply to 

Amendment 80 vessels while they are 

used to directed fish for scallops using 

dredge gear. 

Section 679.91 

• In § 679.91(a)(1), NMFS clarified 

that an Amendment 80 QS holder must 

designate each Amendment 80 QS 

permit, associated Amendment 80 

vessel, and Amendment 80 LLP license 

on a timely and complete application 

for CQ. This relieves the requirement 

that all QS permits, LLP licenses, and 

associated Amendment 80 vessels held 

by a person had to be assigned to either 

one cooperative or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery, commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘all-in’’ provision. 

• In § 679.91(a)(3), NMFS removed 

the restriction that a person could not 

fish in the Amendment 80 sector if they 

failed to submit a timely application by 

November 1 of the previous year. NMFS 

also revised this paragraph so that 

NMFS will assign an Amendment 80 QS 

permit, associated vessel, and LLP 

license to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery if they are not designated 

on a timely and complete application 

for CQ. 

• In § 679.91(f)(2), NMFS revised this 

paragraph to state that NMFS ‘‘may’’

rather than ‘‘will’’ consider a range of 

factors before reallocating unharvested 

ITAC or unused PSC from the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. This 

modification allows NMFS to manage 

these reallocations using the same 

flexible standards currently used for 

managing fishery resource allocations 

during a fishing season. 

• In § 679.91(h)(1), NMFS eliminated 

the requirement that an Amendment 80 

cooperative must accept any person 

wishing to join it. 

• In § 679.91(h)(3)(vii), NMFS 

rephrased regulations that describe the 

fishing season applicable to 

cooperatives so that they reference 

existing trawl closure regulations at 

§ 679.23. 

• In § 679.91(h)(3)(xi) and (xii), 

NMFS rephrased regulations to make it 

clear that a person holding multiple QS 

permits, LLP licenses, and associated 

Amendment 80 vessels is not required 

to assign all of those permits, licenses, 

or vessels to only one cooperative or the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

during a calendar year. This revision 

removes the ‘‘all in’’ requirement. 

Section 679.92 

• 679.92(b), NMFS clarified that GOA 

sideboard limits do not apply to 

Amendment 80 vessels while they are 

directed fishing for scallops using 

dredge gear. 

• In § 679.92(c), NMFS removed the 

requirement that Amendment 80 vessels 

eligible to directed fish for flatfish in the 

GOA must use a specific LLP license 

designated in Table 39 to part 679 while 

fishing in GOA flatfish fisheries. 

Section 679.93 

• In § 679.93(c), NMFS clarified that 

M&E requirements in the BSAI 

established under the Program do not 

apply to Amendment 80 vessels that are 

directed fishing for scallops using 

dredge gear. A similar change is made 

in § 679.93(d) which applies to M&E 

requirements applicable to Amendment 

80 vessels in the GOA. 

• In § 679.93(e)(1)(i)(ii), (e)(2)(ii) and 

(e)(2)(iii), NMFS clarified that catch of 

Amendment 80 species or crab or 

halibut PSC in the BSAI would not be 

debited from a CQ account or the ITAC 

for the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery if an Amendment 80 vessel was 

directed fishing for scallops using 

dredge gear. 

• In § 679.93(e)(3) and (4), NMFS 

clarified that catch of groundfish or 

halibut PSC by Amendment 80 vessels 

fishing in the GOA do not apply to 

groundfish or halibut PSC sideboard 

limits in the GOA when an Amendment 

80 vessel is directed fishing for scallops 

using dredge gear. 

Tables 

• In Table 31 to part 679, NMFS 

added a footnote noting the LLP license 

that is originally assigned to the F/V 

ENTERPRISE. 

• In Table 39 to part 679, NMFS 

changed the title of the table and 

deleted column C to remove references 

to a list of specific LLP licenses that had 

to be used while directed fishing for 

flatfish in the GOA. 

III. Response to Comments 

Comments have been summarized 

and edited for consistency, clarity, and 

to avoid duplication. 

Section 679.2 

Comment 1: Amendment 80 is a 

vessel-based program. Catch history is 

assigned to Amendment 80 eligible 

vessels for the purposes of determining 

QS. The LLP license originally assigned 

to the eligible vessel becomes the LLP 

to which QS is assigned, if the vessel is 

sunk or otherwise becomes permanently 

ineligible. However, an LLP license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel should not become an 

Amendment 80 LLP until vessel owner 

assigns it to an Amendment 80 vessel as 

part of an Amendment 80 QS 

application or until QS is assigned to 

that LLP license when the vessel is lost. 

Once QS is assigned to an Amendment 

80 LLP license it should no longer be 

used outside the Amendment 80 sector. 

Clarify that, at the time of Amendment 

80 QS application, each Amendment 80 

vessel owner chooses the LLP license(s) 

which will be assigned to each 

Amendment 80 vessel by making the 

following four changes in the 

regulations: 

1. Revise the definition of 

‘‘Amendment 80 LLP license’’ under 

§ 679.2 to remove the reference to the 

list of LLP licenses provided in Table 31 

to part 679. 

2. Revise the definition of 

‘‘Amendment 80 LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel’’

under § 679.2 to ‘‘LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel.’’

3. Replace the phrase ‘‘Amendment 

80 LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel’’ with ‘‘LLP 

license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel’’ in § 679.4 

paragraphs (o)(1)(ii), and (iv); and 

§ 679.90 paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A), 

(a)(2)(ii)(C), (b)(4)(i)(E), (b)(4)(i)(H), 

(d)(2)(ii), (e)(4), (f)(3)(i)(B)(2), and 

(f)(3)(i)(E). 

4. Revise the title of Column C in 

Table 31 to part 679 to read ‘‘List of 

Amendment 80 Vessels and LLP 

Licenses Originally Assigned.’’

The Council’s motion, which serves 

as the basis of Amendment 80 to the 

FMP, clearly identified the Program as 

‘‘vessel-based’’ and only referred to the 

‘‘first license assigned to’’ an eligible 

vessel in terms of clarifying which LLP 

license QS could be affixed to in case of 

a total loss or permanent ineligibility of 

the vessel to participate in the fishery. 

At no time did the Council require any 

specific LLP be declared an Amendment 

80 LLP until such time that (1) the 

owner of an Amendment 80 vessel 

decided to assign a specific LLP to a 

vessel as part of an Amendment 80 

application, or (2) the owner of an 

inoperable vessel (e.g., a vessel with a 

total constructive loss) assigned the QS 

derived from that inoperable vessel 

assigned to the LLP license originally 

assigned to that vessel and had 

completed an application for 

Amendment 80 QS. 

This interpretation of Council intent 

is supported by a review of the CRP. 

The CRP prohibited participation in the 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

subsector (i.e., Amendment 80 sector) 

by vessels and owners that did not meet 

the requirements of the CRP, but in no 

way compels participation by eligible 

participants in that fishery or prohibits 

eligible participants from operating in 

other sectors or fisheries. The Council 

similarly defines the parameters of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52675 

Amendment 80 sector, but does not 

compel the use of an LLP license in the 

sector and does not explicitly restrict 

the use of an LLP license that is eligible 

for use in the Amendment 80 sector 

outside of that sector if that license is 

not actually used in the Amendment 80 

sector. 

At this time, at least one LLP 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel is being used on a nonAmendment 80 vessel. The Amendment 

80 vessel originally issued that LLP 

license is currently using a different LLP 

license to prosecute its non-AFA 

catcher/processor fisheries. In 

developing a vessel-based Program, it 

was not the Council’s intent to disrupt 

the use of these (or any other) LLP 

licenses but rather to ensure that when 

an application for Amendment 80 QS is 

submitted, that it is accompanied by at 

least one LLP that is endorsed for use in 

fishing for groundfish in the Bering Sea 

and/or Aleutian Islands for that 

Amendment QS permit. 

Response: NMFS agrees in part. 

NMFS modified the final rule as 

recommended by the commenter in 

points 1, 3, and 4. The Council motion, 

which serves as the basis of Amendment 

80, describes how an LLP license can be 

used in the Program. After reviewing the 

draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the 

proposed rule (see Section 1.11.6), the 

final EA/RIR (see ADDRESSES), and 

records of the Council action supporting 

the Program, NMFS concludes the 

following which support the 

recommended changes in points 1, 3, 

and 4 above: 

• Amendment 80 and the Program 

clearly define the LLP license to which 

QS should be assigned in the event an 

Amendment 80 vessel suffers an actual 

total loss, constructive total loss, or 

permanent ineligibility to fish. 

• In order to participate in the nonpollock groundfish fisheries using a 

trawl catcher/processor, as defined in 

the CRP, a person must own an 

Amendment 80 vessel and hold an LLP 

license endorsed for trawl gear with a 

catcher/processor designation in the BS 

or AI. 

• The Council did not recommend 

that in all cases an LLP license 

originally issued to an Amendment 80 

vessel must be defined as an 

Amendment 80 LLP license, or that an 

LLP license originally issued to an 

Amendment 80 vessel must be used 

within the Amendment 80 sector. 

• Once an Amendment 80 LLP 

license is assigned for use in the 

Amendment 80 sector, it is not intended 

to be used to designate a nonAmendment 80 vessel and be used 

outside of the Amendment 80 sector. 

• The Council’s action supports the 

commenter’s recommendation that a 

person must assign an LLP license 

endorsed for trawl catcher/processor 

activity to an Amendment 80 vessel. 

• The Council did express concern 

about ‘‘double-dipping,’’ which is the 

process of using an LLP license 

endorsed for trawl catcher/processor 

gear and which originally designates an 

Amendment 80 vessel from being used 

onboard a non-Amendment 80 vessel in 

other groundfish fisheries, specifically 

those in the GOA. By allowing LLP 

licenses issued to an Amendment 80 

vessel to be used outside of the 

Amendment 80 sector, there is the 

potential that the additional harvest 

opportunities offered by the use of that 

LLP license could lead to an increase in 

fishing effort in other non-LAPP 

fisheries. 

In regards to point 2 of the comment, 

NMFS determined that a modification 

was needed, but not exactly as the 

commenter suggests. NMFS found that 

defining an LLP license as an 

‘‘Amendment 80 LLP license’’ only if it 

is noted on an application for 

Amendment 80 QS would not address 

two situations. First, if an LLP license 

designates an Amendment 80 vessel 

after the application period for 

Amendment 80 QS has ended, it would 

not be considered an Amendment 80 

LLP license under the commenter’s 

proposal. Second, if an Amendment 80 

QS permit is assigned to an LLP license 

originally issued to an Amendment 80 

vessel, then that LLP license becomes an 

Amendment 80 QS/LLP permit. 

However, unless that Amendment 80 

QS/LLP license designates an 

Amendment 80 vessel, it would not be 

considered an Amendment 80 LLP 

under the commenter’s proposal. 

Allowing an LLP license meeting either 

of these criteria not to be defined as an 

Amendment 80 LLP license contravenes 

the clear intent of the Program. This 

intent is to ensure that once an LLP 

license is used in the Amendment 80 

sector either to support fishing onboard 

an Amendment 80 vessel or has an 

Amendment 80 QS permit affixed to it, 

then that LLP license becomes an 

Amendment 80 LLP license and cannot 

be used to designate a non-Amendment 

80 vessel. 

Therefore, NMFS modified the 

definition of an ‘‘Amendment 80 LLP 

license’’ to include (1) LLP licenses 

designated on an application for 

Amendment 80 QS; (2) LLP licenses that 

designate an Amendment 80 vessel at 

any point after the effective date of this 

rule; and (3) any Amendment 80 QS/ 

LLP permit. 

With these changes in the definition 

of an Amendment 80 LLP license, 

NMFS is deleting the prohibition at 

§ 679.7(o)(2) which limits a person from 

designating ‘‘an Amendment 80 vessel 

on any LLP license other than an 

Amendment 80 LLP license.’’ With the 

changes in the definition of an 

Amendment 80 LLP license, any time an 

LLP license designates an Amendment 

80 LLP license it is defined as an 

Amendment 80 LLP license. This 

prohibition is no longer necessary with 

the removal of a defined list of 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses. 

NMFS is adding two new paragraphs 

at § 679.7(o)(2)(i) and (o)(2)(ii) in 

response to the comment. The new 

paragraph at § 679.7(o)(2)(i) clarifies that 

persons are prohibited from designating 

any vessel other than an Amendment 80 

vessel on an Amendment 80 LLP 

license. This change is consistent with 

the commenter’s recommendation, the 

final EA/RIR/FRFA, and Amendment 

80. 

The new paragraph at § 679.7(o)(2)(ii) 

adds a requirement that a person who 

holds Amendment 80 QS and who owns 

an Amendment 80 vessel also must hold 

an Amendment 80 LLP license endorsed 

for trawl catcher/processor activity in 

the Bering Sea subarea or Aleutian 

Islands subarea that designates that 

Amendment 80 vessel at all times 

during a calendar year unless that 

Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an 

actual total loss, constructive total loss, 

or is permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108. This provision ensures that a 

person holding multiple trawl catcher/ 

processor endorsed LLP licenses in the 

BS or AI maintains one LLP license on 

each vessel, so that each Amendment 80 

vessel is designated on an LLP license 

even if that vessel is not fishing. This 

provision is necessary to meet the clear 

intent of the CRP, which requires that in 

order to participate in the Amendment 

80 sector, a person must hold an LLP 

license that is endorsed for groundfish 

in the Bering Sea subarea or Aleutian 

Islands subarea with a catcher/processor 

designation. However, this paragraph 

does not require that a person designate 

an Amendment 80 vessel on an 

Amendment 80 LLP license in the event 

that vessel has been lost or is no longer 

able to fish. If a vessel is no longer able 

to be used in the fishery, then it is not 

necessary to assign an LLP license to 

that vessel. Instead, a person who holds 

an LLP license that designated a lost or 

permanently ineligible vessel could 

designate that LLP license for use on 

another Amendment 80 vessel. 

With these changes, several key 

components of the Program will be 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52676 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

improved. First, LLP licenses that were 

originally issued to an Amendment 80 

vessel but are currently used outside of 

the Amendment 80 sector would not be 

defined as Amendment 80 LLP licenses 

until such time as they designate an 

Amendment 80 vessel, or the QS permit 

for an Amendment 80 vessel is affixed 

to that LLP license. This would allow 

existing business operations using these 

LLP licenses to continue without being 

adversely affected by the Program. 

Second, by requiring that each 

Amendment 80 LLP license designate 

an Amendment 80 vessel, NMFS 

ensures that the clear requirements for 

participation in the Amendment 80 

sector are met, and reduces the potential 

that LLP licenses originally issued to 

Amendment 80 vessels will be used 

outside of the Amendment 80 sector in 

a manner that will increase fishing effort 

in other non-Amendment 80 sector 

fisheries. 

NMFS had proposed listing 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses as a means 

of addressing two issues. First, it is clear 

that the Council intended that in the 

event an Amendment 80 vessel is lost or 

is permanently ineligible to fish, the QS 

assigned to that vessel may be assigned 

to the LLP license originally assigned to 

that vessel. Second, it is clear that in 

order to participate in the Amendment 

80 sector, one must hold an LLP license 

endorsed for trawl catcher/processor 

activity in the BS or AI. In an effort to 

clarify the list of LLP licenses that 

would meet both of those requirements, 

NMFS had created a list of LLP licenses. 

However, in doing so, NMFS failed to 

account for those vessel operators that 

were using LLP licenses originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel on 

non-Amendment 80 vessels that are 

ineligible to participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector, or the fact that 

LLP licenses that were not issued to an 

Amendment 80 vessel are used by 

Amendment 80 vessels. This change 

corrects that oversight and is consistent 

with the Council’s intent. 

Comment 2: Section 679.2 defines the 

terms ‘‘Amendment 80 fishery,’’

‘‘Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery,’’ ‘‘Amendment 80 sector,’’ and 

‘‘BSAI trawl limited access sector.’’

These terms make the regulations 

difficult to understand. Improve the 

terminology to provide the reader a 

clearer and better understanding of 

these groups and sectors and how each 

is treated under the rule. 

Response: As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, NMFS used 

terminology that is consistent with the 

terms used by the Council in the 

development of this Program to reduce 

confusion. NMFS also provided 

additional explanation of the terms 

identified by the commenter in the 

preambles to the proposed and final 

rules. NMFS determined that sufficient 

explanation of the terms used has been 

provided and a change in terminology at 

this point would create significant 

confusion. NMFS did not modify the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Section 679.4 

Comment 3: Comment supports the 

Amendment 80 QS permit application 

requirements in the proposed rule and 

urges NMFS to retain those restrictions 

in the final regulations. 

Response: NMFS notes the comment 

and that the proposed requirements 

have been retained in this final rule. 

Comment 4: Sections 679.4(o)(1)(ii) 

and (iii) state that Amendment 80 QS 

permits may be issued to the owner of 

the Amendment 80 vessel or to the 

holder of an LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel. 

Under these provisions, an Amendment 

80 vessel owner could transfer the LLP 

license originally issued for an 

Amendment 80 vessel, but retain the 

Amendment 80 vessel. As such, the 

owner of an Amendment 80 vessel 

would be issued QS. 

Clarify what would happen to the 

disposition of QS that was originally 

issued to the vessel owner if the 

Amendment 80 vessel sinks and is a 

total loss. Will the QS automatically be 

reassigned to the holder of the LLP 

license originally issued for that vessel? 

This scenario is especially troubling if 

the QS permit derived from a sunken 

vessel is one of the nine QS permits 

required to form a cooperative. Is the 

cooperative still valid, even if an 

Amendment 80 vessel sinks and the 

associated QS permit is issued to a new 

owner outside the cooperative? 

Response: NMFS modified the 

regulations at § 679.7(o)(3) based on this 

comment. The proposed regulations 

allowed an Amendment 80 QS permit to 

be assigned to the holder of the LLP 

license originally issued for an 

Amendment 80 vessel during the initial 

allocation of Amendment 80 QS (see 

§ 679.90(d)(2)(ii)), or after the initial 

allocation of QS through a transfer 

process (see § 679.90(e)(4)) if that vessel 

suffers an actual total loss, constructive 

total loss, or is permanently ineligible to 

receive a fishery endorsement under 46 

U.S.C. 12108. The proposed regulations 

also prohibited a person from holding 

Amendment 80 QS assigned to a vessel 

unless that person is ‘‘designated as the 

owner of that Amendment 80 vessel by 

an abstract of title or USCG [United 

States Coast Guard] documentation (see 

§ 679.7(o)(3)(ii)).’’

Based on the intent expressed by the 

Council in developing the Program, 

which is supported in the draft EA/RIR/ 

IRFA prepared for the proposed rule 

and described in the preamble of the 

proposed rule, NMFS added a new 

prohibition in this final rule at 

§ 679.7(o)(3)(ii) to clearly prohibit a 

person from holding an Amendment 80 

QS permit assigned to an Amendment 

80 vessel if that Amendment 80 vessel 

has suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108 after October 15 in the calendar 

year following the date of that actual 

total loss, constructive total loss, or 

permanent ineligibility to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108. 

By requiring divestiture of 

Amendment 80 QS by October 15 the 

first year after the loss, the vessel owner 

would have adequate time to initiate 

transfer before the application for CQ or 

application for an Amendment 80 

limited access fishery is due for the 

following year. This deadline provides a 

vessel owner a minimum of nine and a 

half months, assuming a vessel is lost or 

becomes permanently ineligible on 

December 31 of the preceding year, to 

transfer the QS to the holder of the LLP 

license originally assigned to that 

Amendment 80 vessel under the 

provisions of § 679.90(e)(4). Therefore, if 

a vessel is lost or becomes ineligible in 

the middle of a year, the vessel owner 

could continue to hold the Amendment 

80 QS for the following year. This 

reduces the potential disruptions that 

mid-year divestiture could cause to 

existing business arrangements. The 

October 15 deadline was chosen by 

NMFS because it is the same as the 

deadline to apply for QS. In addition, 

requiring divestiture by October 15 

should provide any person who may 

receive the QS by transfer to the LLP 

license originally issued to the 

Amendment 80 vessel that has been lost 

or is now permanently ineligible 15 

days to determine whether the resulting 

Amendment 80 QS/LLP license would 

be assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative or limited access fishery. 

If the owner of a lost or permanently 

ineligible vessel sought to retain 

Amendment 80 QS assigned to that 

vessel after October 15 in the calendar 

year following the loss or permanent 

ineligibility of the vessel, that person 

would be in violation of the prohibition 

and NMFS could begin proceedings to 

revoke the Amendment 80 QS permit. 

NMFS notes that this prohibition does 

not require NMFS to automatically 

reissue the Amendment 80 QS permit to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52677 

the holder of the LLP license originally 

issued to the Amendment 80 vessel. 

NMFS assumes that should an 

Amendment 80 vessel be lost or become 

permanently ineligible, and the LLP 

license originally assigned to that 

Amendment 80 vessel was held by 

someone other than the vessel owner, 

the two parties would reach a mutually 

beneficial arrangement and the QS 

would be transferred under the transfer 

provisions at § 679.90(f) and affixed to 

that LLP license. 

With these changes, NMFS has 

addressed the questions raised by the 

commenter. First, the prohibition at 

§ 679.7(o)(3)(ii) makes clear that a vessel 

owner cannot continue to hold 

Amendment 80 QS assigned to a vessel 

in the event of a vessel’s loss or 

permanent ineligibility after a specific 

deadline. Second, if an Amendment 80 

QS permit assigned to an Amendment 

80 vessel can no longer be held by the 

owner of a lost or permanently 

ineligible vessel after a specific date, 

that person is in violation of the 

regulations, is no longer a valid 

Amendment 80 QS holder, and cannot 

use that Amendment 80 vessel-related 

QS permit in an Amendment 80 

cooperative or Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery after that date. Therefore 

that person and the Amendment 80 QS 

permit that used to be held by that 

person will not be considered as one of 

the Amendment 80 QS permit holders 

for purposes of meeting the minimum 

number of Amendment 80 QS permits 

necessary to form an Amendment 80 

cooperative under the regulations at 

§ 679.91(h)(3)(ii). The Amendment 80 

QS permit could be transferred to the 

LLP license originally assigned to that 

Amendment 80 vessel under the 

regulations at § 679.90(f). Once the 

Amendment 80 QS permit is transferred 

to the LLP license originally issued to 

that Amendment 80 vessel, the person 

holding that Amendment 80 QS/LLP 

license will be eligible to be a member 

of an Amendment 80 cooperative. 

This regulation is necessary to be 

consistent with the intent of the 

Program. Regulations at 

§ 679.90(a)(2)(i)(A) clarify that a person 

is eligible to receive QS as the owner of 

an Amendment 80 vessel if that person, 

among other criteria, can demonstrate 

that they own an Amendment 80 vessel 

through an abstract of title or USCG 

documentation. This raises the question 

of whether a person can continue to 

demonstrate ownership of an 

Amendment 80 vessel that suffers an 

actual total loss, constructive total loss, 

or is permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108 through an abstract of title or 

USCG documentation, and therefore 

hold QS as a vessel owner? 

Regulations pertaining to vessel 

documentation at 46 CFR 67.7 require 

that any vessel of five net tons or more 

used in fishing activities on navigable 

waters of the United States or in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), or used 

in coastwise trade must be documented 

through the USCG unless the vessel is 

exempt from documentation. All 

Amendment 80 vessels are greater than 

five net tons, are used in fishing 

activities in the EEZ, and do not meet 

the criteria for an exemption for USCG 

documentation. Therefore, all 

Amendment 80 vessels must have USCG 

documentation. 

However, regulations pertaining to 

vessel documentation at 46 CFR part 67 

do not prohibit a vessel that has suffered 

an actual total loss or constructive total 

loss from being documented. 

Additionally, even if an Amendment 80 

vessel is permanently ineligible to 

receive a fishery endorsement under 46 

U.S.C. 12108, a vessel could be 

documented with an endorsement for 

use in a non-fishery related trade. 

Additionally, even though all 

Amendment 80 vessels must be 

documented under 46 CFR part 67, 

there do not appear to be any 

regulations that prohibit a person from 

also holding a title of abstract to a vessel 

that has suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108. 

The construction of the proposed rule 

and vessel documentation regulations at 

46 CFR part 67 create the potential that 

a person could demonstrate ownership 

of an Amendment 80 vessel through a 

title of abstract or USCG documentation 

even if that vessel has suffered an actual 

total loss, constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108. In such a case, a person could 

still be considered the owner of an 

Amendment 80 vessel and not violate 

the prohibition in the proposed rule 

under § 679.7(o)(3)(ii). 

The potential for a person to continue 

to hold Amendment 80 QS assigned to 

an Amendment 80 vessel if that vessel 

has suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to fish 

contravenes the clear intent of the 

Council when designing the Program. 

The Council did not recommend that 

owners of vessels that have suffered an 

actual total loss, constructive total loss, 

or are permanently ineligible to be used 

in a fishery should be able to continue 

to hold QS that is assigned to that 

Amendment 80 vessel. 

The Council contemplated that 

Amendment 80 QS would transfer to the 

LLP license originally issued for that 

Amendment 80 vessel. Section 1.11.6 of 

the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for the 

final rule specifically contemplates that 

‘‘catch history,’’ a term synonymous 

with Amendment 80 QS, could be 

transferred should a vessel suffer an 

actual total loss, constructive total loss, 

or become permanently ineligible to be 

used in a fishery. ‘‘The [CRP] legislation 

is ‘‘steel based’’ (i.e., linked to the hull), 

allowing the catch history of sunk or 

lost vessel to be transferred to the 

originating license. This would allow 

the catch history to stay in the fishery 

and be used on another eligible vessel, 

rather than being extinguished.’’

Furthermore, Section 1.11.13.5 of the 

final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for the 

final rule notes that catch history is 

affixed to the LLP license originally 

issued for an Amendment 80 vessel in 

the event of its loss. It reads, ‘‘In the 

event of a total actual loss or 

constructive loss of a vessel, or 

permanent inability of a vessel to be 

used in the Program, the catch history 

will [emphasis added] be attached to the 

license that arose from that vessel.’’

The preamble to the proposed rule 

contemplates that Amendment 80 QS 

would need to be transferred in the 

event an Amendment 80 vessel is lost. 

The preamble to the proposed rule (72 

FR 30077) states that ‘‘[t]he Program 

would ensure that an Amendment 80 

QS permit resulting from the legal 

landings of an Amendment 80 vessel 

could be used even if an Amendment 80 

vessel were lost or became permanently 

ineligible to fish in U.S. waters. Under 

certain conditions, NMFS would issue 

an Amendment 80 QS permit to the 

holder of the Amendment 80 LLP 

license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel rather than the 

Amendment 80 vessel owner.’’ The 

preamble to the proposed rule also 

states that ‘‘[t]his provision is intended 

to allow a person to continue 

participation in the Amendment 80 

sector if otherwise qualified. During the 

development of the Program, this 

provision was considered as a means for 

meeting the overall intent of the 

Program to allow a person to use QS 

under specific conditions without 

contravening the intent of the CRP.’’

The preamble to the proposed rule 

also envisioned that a QS permit could 

be revoked by NMFS if a vessel is lost 

or becomes permanently ineligible to 

fish. Specifically, the preamble to the 

proposed rule detailed this situation 

when describing the definition of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52678 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

LLP license originally assigned to the F/ 

V ENTERPRISE. Although the example 

provided in the preamble describes the 

potential of QS being extinguished in 

the event that the F/V ENTERPRISE 

suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or became 

permanently ineligible, the example is 

relevant to all other Amendment 80 

vessels. It reads, ‘‘Because the F/V 

ENTERPRISE did not give rise to an LLP 

license, if NMFS were to permit a QS 

permit to be transferred only to the LLP 

license originally issued to an 

Amendment 80 vessel, the QS permit 

issued to the owner of the F/V 

ENTERPRISE could not be assigned to 

any LLP license. If the F/V ENTERPRISE 

was lost or became permanently 

ineligible to fish in U.S. waters, the QS 

issued to the owner of the F/V 

ENTERPRISE could be extinguished’’

(72 FR 30078). 

The changes made in § 679.7(o)(3)(iii) 

meet the clear intent of the Program and 

are consistent with the proposed rule. 

The regulations at § 679.4(o)(1)(ii) and 

(iii) do not need to be modified. The 

regulations at § 679.4(o)(1)(ii) and (iii) 

refer to permitting requirements and do 

not address limitations on holding QS. 

Comment 5: Remove the prohibition 

at § 679.7(o)(1)(ii), (o)(4)(i), and (o)(5)(i) 

limiting the receiving and processing 

Amendment 80 species from the BSAI 

trawl limited access fishery or the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

The following are the primary concerns 

with the prohibition: 

• The prohibition on the processing 

or receiving of Amendment 80 species 

from the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector or the Amendment 80 limited 

access sector was not recommended by 

the industry and was not part of the 

Council’s recommendation to NMFS. 

• These prohibitions are contrary to 

the FMP and the overall goals of the 

Program to promote bycatch reduction 

and improved utilization. NMFS cannot 

add regulations that contravene the FMP 

unless the Secretary of Commerce 

disapproves the action. 

• The prohibition was not analyzed 

in the EA/RIR/IRFA, nor by the Council 

and therefore should be removed. 

Specifically, this prohibition could 

adversely affect small entities as defined 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

• The prohibition violates National 

Standard 9 and Executive Order 12866. 

• NMFS has sufficient observation, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, and auditing systems in 

place to independently account for 

cooperative catch and deliveries from 

the BSAI limited access sector or 

Amendment 80 limited access sector. 

• NMFS also has the tools necessary 

to monitor the GRS without limiting 

vessel activity during a weekly reporting 

period. 

• Neither the preamble nor the 

regulations should suggest or add a 

prohibition that would limit an 

Amendment 80 vessel to operating as 

either a mothership, stationary floating 

processor, or as a fishing vessel on a 

week-by-week basis (see, for example, 

72 FR 30073). 

Amendment 80 vessels have 

historically received and processed 

Amendment 80 species caught by 

catcher vessels in the BSAI and they 

have done so in conjunction with their 

own fishing during the same weekly 

reporting period. Prohibiting this 

activity will not only impact the 

Amendment 80 sector, but it will 

severely limit catcher vessels within the 

BSAI limited access sector from 

harvesting certain Amendment 80 

species. For species such as Pacific cod, 

catcher vessels have existing shoreside 

business relationships that will 

continue, but for the remaining 

Amendment 80 species, such as 

yellowfin sole, there is limited or no 

shoreside capacity for processing. The 

proposed prohibition is inconsistent 

with the goal of improving the accuracy 

of the catch accounting system and 

reducing discards as catcher vessels will 

be forced to deliver Amendment 80 

species to facilities with less than 200 

percent observer coverage and no GRS 

requirements. 

The distance of Amendment 80 

species fisheries in relation to shoreside 

processors may limit catcher vessels’

ability to deliver a quality product. 

Amendment 80 cooperative vessels have 

the flexibility to act as motherships and 

travel to locations where the fisheries 

occur. Amendment 80 vessels also have 

existing markets and capacity for 

producing high quality products from 

Amendment 80 species. The proposed 

prohibition against delivering BSAI 

limited access and Amendment 80 

limited access fish to Amendment 80 

vessels in cooperatives has significant 

impacts on small business entities, AFA 

and non-AFA catcher vessels, and 

Amendment 80 vessels that may choose 

to act as catcher vessels in the future. 

Each Amendment 80 vessel will carry 

two NMFS-certified observers who will 

sample 100 percent of the hauls and 

deliveries made to the vessel. In 

addition, each haul and delivery will be 

independently weighed on a certified 

flow scale. Recordkeeping and reporting 

regulations require that hauls made by 

a vessel be recorded separately from 

deliveries made to the vessel in the 

Daily Cumulative Production Logbook 

(DCPL) and in the Weekly Production 

Report (WPR) submitted to NMFS. The 

proposed regulations actually provide 

monitoring and enforcement 

requirements for vessels that receive 

‘‘unsorted catch’’ (See § 679.27(j)(7)). 

Corroborating the vessel logbook 

information should not be difficult. Two 

observers will be onboard and there will 

always be one observer on shift to 

independently witness a catcher vessel 

delivery. Observers record unsorted 

codend deliveries differently than catch 

the vessel made itself. Observers record 

a delivering vessel’s name and ADF&G 

number that NMFS can use to verify a 

delivery was made from the BSAI 

limited access sector or Amendment 80 

limited access sector. Observer data are 

reported daily to the Observer Program 

and the Regional Office and, in 

conjunction with vessel logbook 

information, this should be sufficient for 

determining on a haul by haul basis 

whether catch should be debited against 

a cooperative’s CQ, the BSAI limited 

access sector, or the Amendment 80 

limited access sector. 

For vessels in a cooperative, the GRS 

will be monitored at the cooperative 

level and it does not need to be met 

until the end of the year, therefore inseason audits of product would serve 

little value for enforcement with respect 

to monitoring the GRS. Observer data 

and vessel logbook data are adequate for 

GRS monitoring and enforcement and 

there is no reason to separate product in 

the hold or to limit a vessel’s activity by 

weekly reporting period. 

Response: NMFS agrees in part and 

has modified the regulations at 679.7(o) 

to allow Amendment 80 vessels to 

receive unsorted catch in limited 

circumstances. This revision will allow 

the one entity that NMFS has identified 

as currently receiving unsorted catch 

from a catcher vessel in the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery to continue to do 

so. This revision will accommodate 

potential future growth in the use of 

Amendment 80 vessels as mothership 

vessels for vessels in the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery. 

NMFS made the following 

modifications: 

• Modified § 679.7(o)(1)(i) to prohibit 

the use of any vessel other than an 

Amendment 80 vessel to catch any 

amount of Amendment 80 species, crab 

PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector. This removed 

the reference to processing and 

receiving catch. 

• Modified § 679.7(o)(1)(ii) to prohibit 

the use an Amendment 80 vessel to 

catch any amount of Amendment 80 

species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52679 

access sector. This removed the 

proposed references to processing and 

receiving catch. 

• Deleted the prohibition at 

§ 679.7(o)(1)(iii). This removes 

limitations on using an Amendment 80 

vessel to catch, process, or receive catch 

of Amendment 80 species assigned to 

other fisheries. 

• Modified § 679.7(o)(4)(i) to prohibit 

the use an Amendment 80 vessel, 

Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 QS permit not assigned 

to an Amendment 80 cooperative for a 

calendar year to catch any Amendment 

80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative during that calendar year. 

This rephrasing removes proposed 

references to receiving and processing 

catch and makes it clear that only 

vessels assigned to a cooperative can be 

used to catch CQ assigned to that 

cooperative. 

• Add a new prohibition at 

§ 679.7(o)(4)(ii) to prohibit the use of an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative for a 

calendar year to receive or process catch 

from any Amendment 80 vessel not 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative for that calendar year. This 

provision prohibits an Amendment 80 

vessel from receiving or processing 

catch from Amendment 80 vessels in 

other Amendment 80 cooperatives or in 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery, but it does not limit the ability 

of Amendment 80 vessels to receive and 

process catch from other fisheries, such 

as the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. 

• Renumber § 679.7 paragraphs 

(o)(4)(ii), (iii), and (iv) as 

§ 679.7(o)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v) 

respectively. 

• Modify § 679.7(o)(5)(i) to prohibit 

the use of an Amendment 80 vessel, 

Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 QS permit not assigned 

to the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery for a calendar year to catch any 

Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or 

halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access sector during that 

calendar year. This rephrasing removes 

proposed references to receiving and 

processing catch and makes it clear that 

only vessels assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery can be used to 

catch Amendment 80 species ITAC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. 

• Add a new prohibition at 

§ 679.7(o)(5)(ii) to prohibit the use of an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

for a calendar year to receive or process 

catch from any Amendment 80 vessel 

not assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery for that calendar 

year. This provision prohibits an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

from receiving or processing catch from 

Amendment 80 vessels in Amendment 

80 cooperatives, but it does not limit the 

ability of such vessels to receive and 

process catch from other fisheries, such 

as the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. 

• Renumber § 679.7 paragraphs 

(o)(5)(ii) and (iii) as § 679.7(o)(5)(iii) and 

(iv) respectively. 

These modifications narrow the focus 

of these prohibitions so that limitations 

on the harvesting activities of 

Amendment 80 vessels are distinct from 

the limitations on receiving and 

processing catch. A direct result of these 

restructured prohibitions is that NMFS 

is no longer indirectly prohibiting an 

Amendment 80 vessel from catching, 

processing, or receiving fish allocated to 

the CDQ Program (see response to 

comment 6 for additional detail). These 

more narrowly defined prohibitions will 

permit the delivery of catch from the 

BSAI trawl limited access fishery to the 

Amendment 80 sector, accommodate 

existing delivery and processing 

patterns, and ensure adequate catch 

accounting. The following table 

summarizes the limitations on the 

delivery of unsorted catch that the suite 

of revised prohibitions will impose on 

Amendment 80 vessels. 

Can unsorted catch (codends) from . . . be received and processed by an Amendment 80 vessel 

assigned to . . . Yes No 

An Amendment 80 vessel in a cooperative .......................... Another Amendment 80 cooperative ................................... ................ X 

An Amendment 80 vessel in a cooperative .......................... The same Amendment 80 cooperative ............................... X ................

An Amendment 80 vessel in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.An Amendment 80 cooperative ........................................... ................ X 

An Amendment 80 vessel in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.The Amendment 80 limited access fishery ......................... X ................

The BSAI trawl limited access sector ................................... An Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.X ................

Non-Amendment 80 non-trawl fisheries (e.g., longline Pacific cod).An Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.X ................

The preamble to the proposed rule 

stated the following reasons for the 

proposed prohibitions on receiving and 

processing unsorted catch from the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector 

onboard an Amendment 80 vessel: (1) 

Uncertainty over whether the Council 

intended to allow unrestricted delivery 

of unsorted catch; (2) concern over the 

unintended consequences of allowing 

Amendment 80 vessels to receive catch 

from non-Amendment 80 vessels; (3) 

concern for GRS compliance; and (4) 

concern over ensuring proper catch 

accounting. 

In light of comment 5, NMFS 

reviewed the rationale for the proposed 

prohibitions, examined the 

administrative record, and developed 

additional analysis on the economic 

impacts of these proposed prohibitions. 

NMFS has included that analysis in the 

FRFA, and the RIR incorporates by 

reference the information and analyses 

contained in the FRFA. 

NMFS analyzed observer data from 

2003 through 2006, a time frame chosen 

for analysis because it represents recent 

processing patterns. During each year of 

the 2003 through 2006 time period, only 

one Amendment 80 vessel received 

catch from a non-Amendment 80 vessel. 

The Amendment 80 vessel received 

unsorted catch from the same nonAmendment 80 catcher vessel in each 

year. The specific amounts of unsorted 

catch delivered cannot be provided due 

to limitations on the release of 

confidential data. Based on information 

available to NMFS, including 

information provided by a public 

comment, it appears that the nonAmendment 80 vessel and the 

Amendment 80 vessel are owned by the 

same entity. 

The entity that is engaged in 

delivering and processing unsorted 

catch onboard an Amendment 80 vessel 

would not be defined as a small entity 

under Small Business Administration 

(SBA) standards based on the 

information available to NMFS 

concerning the predicted annual exvessel revenue from this entity, and the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52680 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

definition of a small entity in the 

harvesting sector used by NMFS. It does 

appear that the proposed prohibitions 

would have limited the ability of this 

one non-small entity to continue to 

deliver and process unsorted catch from 

its non-Amendment 80 catcher vessel 

onboard its Amendment 80 vessel. 

This analysis indicates that the 

practice of delivering unsorted catch 

from non-Amendment 80 vessels to 

Amendment 80 vessels is not as 

widespread as suggested by some 

commenters. Although industry 

participants may wish to engage in such 

practices in the future, the proposed 

prohibitions do not appear to adversely 

affect any known small entities as that 

term is currently defined under SBA 

standards. Although the specific amount 

of catch being delivered from catcher 

vessels to Amendment 80 vessels cannot 

be released, that catch represents a 

small proportion of the overall catch in 

the BSAI. Based on the above, previous 

concerns that permitting this practice 

would create a significant shift in 

processing patterns away from existing 

shore-based processors do not appear to 

be supported, particularly if current 

rates of delivery of unsorted catch from 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector to 

the Amendment 80 sector continue. 

NMFS also re-examined its ability to 

track catch for purposes of GRS 

compliance if unsorted catch from 

numerous sources were delivered to 

Amendment 80 vessels. The preamble to 

the proposed rule specifically requested 

public comment to assist NMFS in 

determining if there were measures that 

could provide adequate catch 

accounting and permit this practice. 

Subsequent review of the GRS program 

in consultation with the NOAA Office of 

Law Enforcement (OLE) and industry 

participants indicates that current 

monitoring and enforcement practices 

for GRS compliance are not adversely 

affected by the receipt and processing of 

unsorted catch from multiple vessels 

aboard the same vessel, provided the 

weight of each codend (i.e., delivery of 

unsorted catch) is adequately reported 

when delivered and vessel operators 

comply with DCPL and WPR 

requirements. NMFS anticipates that 

GRS compliance will be monitored by 

reviewing annual groundfish catch and 

retention for each Amendment 80 

cooperative or for each Amendment 80 

vessel that is assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

Therefore, combining unsorted catch 

from multiple sources onboard a single 

Amendment 80 vessel would not 

undermine GRS M&E requirements. 

Finally, NMFS determined that, 

although Council intent is not clear 

regarding the regulation of catch 

assigned to one group of fishery 

participants to be received and 

processed by another group of fishery 

participants, the Council did not 

expressly indicate its intent to limit the 

delivery of unsorted catch. NMFS 

indicated that Council intent was not 

clear in the preamble to the proposed 

rule (72 FR 30052; May 30, 2007), and 

again at two public workshops on May 

23, 2007 (72 FR 27798), and on June 18, 

2007 (72 FR 31548), both of which were 

attended by numerous participants in 

the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 

limited access sectors, and a member of 

the Council. Further, NMFS provided a 

review of the proposed rule to the 

Council at its June 2007 meeting, 

specifically highlighting this issue and 

requesting that the Council provide 

comments if the proposed rule 

contravened Council intent. At the June 

2007 Council meeting, the Council did 

not indicate that it either intended or 

did not intend to allow catch from the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector to be 

delivered to the Amendment 80 sector. 

The Council did not provide any 

comments during the public comment 

period for either the proposed rule or 

Amendment 80 to indicate that 

limitations on the receipt and 

processing of unsorted catch contained 

in the proposed rule contravened 

Council intent. 

Based on the additional analysis 

NMFS conducted as a result of this 

comment and the lack of Council intent 

to the contrary as explained above, 

NMFS determined that most of the 

proposed prohibitions on the delivery of 

catch from the BSAI trawl limited 

access fishery to the Amendment 80 

sector should not be included in this 

final rule. Therefore, NMFS modified 

the regulations at 679.7(o) to allow 

Amendment 80 vessels to receive 

unsorted catch in limited 

circumstances. 

However, NMFS did not change the 

proposed rule to allow Amendment 80 

vessels to deliver to other Amendment 

80 vessels in specific circumstances 

described below because it would 

significantly complicate M&E of the 

Program and the analysis indicates that 

this prohibition will not affect any 

current fishing practices. As explained 

above, NMFS determined that 

maintaining this prohibition in the final 

rule is not contrary to Council intent. 

This prohibition is consistent with the 

language of Amendment 80, and the 

Council provided no indication that any 

of the proposed prohibitions were 

inconsistent with their intent. 

NMFS also determined that this 

prohibition is necessary to adequately 

monitor and enforce the Program and 

meet the agency’s obligations under the 

MSA. Properly accounting for and 

tracking catch may be complicated if: (1) 

Catch from a vessel assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative is processed 

on an Amendment 80 vessel not 

assigned to that cooperative; or (2) catch 

from a vessel assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery is 

processed on an Amendment 80 vessel 

not assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. Although NMFS 

will require two observers aboard each 

Amendment 80 vessel while fishing in 

the BSAI, as well as other M&E 

reporting standards, NMFS currently 

has limited mechanisms to review 

observer reports of catch weight and 

sample composition received and 

processed onboard an Amendment 80 

vessel and the assignment of that catch 

to a specific cooperative or the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

while an observer is at sea. Observer 

debriefing can resolve most questions 

and concerns that may arise, but 

observer debriefings typically take place 

several weeks after an observer has 

disembarked from a given vessel. Such 

corrections would occur well after catch 

has been attributed to a specific source, 

and would not be timely. 

As an example, observer reports 

corrected after observer debriefings 

could indicate that unsorted catch from 

an Amendment 80 cooperative was 

incorrectly attributed to a specific 

cooperative and CQ was incorrectly 

debited from a CQ account. Not only 

does this affect the total CQ account 

balances, but if an amount of CQ has 

been transferred to another cooperative 

between the time of a given delivery of 

an unsorted catch and the receipt of a 

corrected observer report, NMFS would 

have limited means to correct the CQ 

account. This could result in debiting 

the CQ account of a third party that 

received the CQ that was transferred. 

Without significant and potentially 

costly programming changes to the 

catch accounting system used to track 

and assign catch and changes to 

observer reporting protocols, NMFS 

remains concerned about its ability to 

ensure that catch from various 

Amendment 80 allocations (i.e., CQ 

accounts for each Amendment 80 

cooperative, and the ITAC of the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery) 

received onboard an Amendment 80 

vessel can be tracked with the degree of 

accuracy necessary to ensure that catch 

is properly debited in a timely and 

correct manner without potentially 

adversely affecting other Amendment 80 

sector participants. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52681 

Changes in the catch accounting 

system and observer protocols could not 

be quickly and easily undertaken to 

allow catch from one Amendment 80 

cooperative or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery to be received and 

processed by vessels assigned to another 

Amendment 80 cooperative. Further, 

NMFS is not required to adopt 

management measures that impose 

additional costs on the agency without 

adequate budgetary provisions. NMFS 

does not have funds currently available 

for substantial changes in catch 

accounting software and observer 

protocols for this specific purpose. 

The Council and NMFS produced an 

extensive RIR in accordance with E.O. 

12866 that examines a range of 

allocations and harvesting patterns and 

that has been appropriately 

supplemented with available additional 

information on this issue. The available 

data do not suggest that the delivery of 

unsorted catch between Amendment 80 

vessels is currently occurring. 

Therefore, NMFS determined that 

maintaining this limitation would not 

adversely affect existing fishing 

operations, would not contravene the 

intent of the Program reduce discards 

and improve efficiency, or violate 

National Standard 9. 

NMFS notes that the need to transfer 

unsorted catch between Amendment 80 

vessels could be accommodated by 

Amendment 80 cooperatives choosing 

to transfer the underlying CQ, rather 

than the catch itself. Furthermore, 

NMFS notes that the prohibitions in 

§ 679.7(o) do not restrict the ability of an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to a 

cooperative to deliver catch to another 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 

same cooperative. Finally, the 

prohibitions in § 679.7(o) do not restrict 

the ability of Amendment 80 vessels 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery to deliver catch to other 

Amendment 80 vessels participating in 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. 

Comment 6: As written, it is not clear 

that Amendment 80 vessels can catch 

and process allocations made to the 

CDQ Program. Add an exception under 

§ 679.7 paragraphs (o)(4)(i), (o)(4)(iv), 

and (o)(5)(i) to make it clear that 

Amendment 80 vessels are authorized to 

catch, process, or receive fish allocated 

to the CDQ Program provided they 

comply with regulations applicable to 

the CDQ Program. Prohibiting 

Amendment 80 vessels from 

participating in the CDQ fisheries was 

not discussed by the Council nor 

considered as part of this action. No 

analysis of the impacts of such an action 

was included in the EA/RIR. 

Prohibiting any Amendment 80 vessel 

from harvesting those species on behalf 

of CDQ partners would be very 

disruptive to the CDQ Program and its 

beneficiaries. Certain Amendment 80 

vessels have long-term relationships 

with their CDQ partners. Not only do 

these harvests contribute significantly to 

the revenues of these vessels, these 

relationships enable western Alaska 

communities to benefit from the harvest 

of Amendment 80 species. 

Response: NMFS agrees. The 

prohibitions proposed in § 679.7 

paragraphs (o)(4)(i), (o)(4)(iv), and 

(o)(5)(i) had the unintentional effect of 

prohibiting Amendment 80 vessels from 

catching, processing, and receiving 

catch allocated to the CDQ Program. As 

the commenter notes, Amendment 80 

vessels have frequently contracted with 

various CDQ groups to harvest their 

allocations. NMFS did not intend to 

specifically exclude Amendment 80 

vessels from continuing existing 

business practices. As noted in the 

response to comment 5, NMFS will be 

able to properly track and account for 

catch made by an Amendment 80 vessel 

that is catching fish allocated to the 

CDQ Program if that vessel is also used 

to catch fish assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector. Therefore, it is 

not necessary to restrict an Amendment 

80 vessel from also catching, processing, 

or receiving catch allocated to the CDQ 

Program. The changes made to the final 

rule as described in response to 

comment 5 would relieve the 

prohibition on an Amendment 80 vessel 

catching fish allocated to the CDQ 

Program at the same time that vessel is 

fishing for an Amendment 80 

cooperative or in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. 

Comment 7: The commenter supports 

regulations at § 679.7(o) that prohibit an 

Amendment 80 vessel from taking 

deliveries of unsorted catch from the 

BSAI trawl limited access fishery. 

Allowing Amendment 80 vessels to 

receive catch from the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector would put them at 

a competitive advantage over existing 

processors. 

Response: As explained in the 

response to comment 5, NMFS proposed 

the prohibitions in § 679.7(o) limiting 

the receipt and processing of 

Amendment 80 species in an effort to 

meet what was believed to be Council 

intent, and to ensure adequate 

accounting of catch. Other commenters 

have noted that nothing in the Program 

specifically prohibits the receipt and 

processing of catch by Amendment 80 

vessels, and the Council did not 

explicitly intend to limit Amendment 

80 vessels as NMFS had proposed. In 

addition, after a subsequent review of 

M&E measures described in the 

response to comment 5, NMFS has 

determined that NMFS can adequately 

track catch of fish from the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery and ensure 

compliance with GRS requirements and 

catch accounting protocols. NMFS has 

revised § 679.7(o) to allow Amendment 

80 vessels to receive and process catch 

from the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector. 

NMFS notes that currently, at least 

one Amendment 80 vessel processes 

unsorted catch from catcher vessels 

although the amount of fish processed 

in this manner is relatively small 

compared to total BSAI processing 

activities. NMFS cannot predict the 

extent to which this practice might 

increase in the future, or whether this 

practice would have any adverse 

economic impact on existing processing 

operations. Numerous commenters from 

both the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 

limited access sectors noted that 

currently there are limited shore-based 

markets for Amendment 80 species and 

Amendment 80 vessels may provide the 

best processing market. NMFS does not 

intend to limit processing operations of 

Amendment 80 vessels at this time 

except as necessary to ensure adequate 

compliance with catch monitoring and 

enforcement standards. A review of 

processing operations by shore-based 

processors and Amendment 80 vessels 

could provide the basis for a future 

regulatory amendment should the 

Council identify and recommend 

additional changes to the Program to 

address potential conflicts that may 

arise. 

Comment 8: Modify regulations to 

allow the F/V ALLIANCE to replace a 

vessel in the Alaska weathervane 

scallop fishery. Make the following 

changes to the regulatory text to permit 

the use of the F/V ALLIANCE in the 

scallop fishery without the M&E 

requirements and catch accounting 

standards generally applicable to 

Amendment 80 vessels: 

• Modify § 679.7(o)(1)(iii) to prohibit 

the use of an Amendment 80 vessel in 

a directed groundfish fishery to catch, 

process, or receive any amount of 

Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or 

halibut PSC in the BSAI for a calendar 

year if that Amendment 80 vessel is not 

assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. 

• Modify § 679.7(o)(6)(i) to prohibit 

the use of an Amendment 80 vessel or 

a catcher/processor not listed in 

§ 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear, to 

catch, process, or receive groundfish in 

the BSAI or adjacent waters opened by 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52682 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the State of Alaska for which it adopts 

a Federal fishing season and fail to 

follow the catch monitoring 

requirements detailed at § 679.93(a), (b), 

and (c). 

• Modify § 679.92(b)(1) to clarify that 

Amendment 80 vessels may not be used 

to catch more than the sideboard 

amounts of groundfish in the 

management areas specified in Table 37 

to part 679 from January 1 through 

December 31 of each year; except that 

groundfish catches of Amendment 80 

vessels using non-trawl gear in a nongroundfish fishery shall not be applied 

to the Amendment 80 sideboard 

limitations. 

• Modify § 679.92(b)(2) to clarify that 

an Amendment 80 vessel fishing in a 

non-trawl non-groundfish fishery is not 

subject to the groundfish or halibut PSC 

sideboard limits in Tables 37 and 38 to 

part 679. 

• Modify § 679.93(c) and (d) to clarify 

that catch monitoring standards for 

Amendment 80 vessels in the BSAI and 

GOA apply only when an Amendment 

80 vessel is fishing in a ‘‘directed 

groundfish fishery.’’

• Modify § 679.93(e) to clarify that 

only the catch by Amendment 80 

vessels fishing in a directed groundfish 

fishery should apply to CQ accounts, 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery, or Amendment 80 GOA 

sideboard limits for purposes of 

accounting for Amendment 80 species, 

crab PSC, or halibut PSC. 

The proposed regulations at 

§ 679.50(c)(6) relating to observer 

coverage requirements for Amendment 

80 vessels fishing in the BSAI and GOA 

would not apply to the F/V ALLIANCE 

if and when that vessel is used as a 

scallop vessel. The proposed observer 

coverage regulations in the BSAI at 

§ 679.50(c)(6)(i) apply only to vessels 

using trawl gear and only for each day 

that the vessel is used to harvest, 

receive, or process groundfish in the 

BSAI or adjacent waters open by the 

State of Alaska for which it adopts a 

Federal fishing season. The observer 

coverage regulations at § 679.50(c)(6)(ii) 

applicable to Amendment 80 vessels 

fishing in the GOA require that such 

vessels must have onboard at least one 

NMFS certified observer for each day 

that the vessel is used to harvest, 

receive, or process groundfish in the 

GOA management areas or adjacent 

waters open by the State of Alaska for 

which it adopts a Federal fishing 

season. These paragraphs provide 

examples showing the clear intent to 

apply M&E requirements only to 

Amendment 80 vessels operating in the 

groundfish fisheries. 

Further, although NMFS may be 

concerned about the possibility that 

Amendment 80 vessels could use nontrawl gear, such as longline gear to 

target Pacific cod, and possibly avoid 

certain M&E requirements such as 

observer coverage in the BSAI, NMFS 

should not apply M&E requirements 

applicable for monitoring the Program 

to non-groundfish fisheries generally. 

The objectives of the M&E requirements, 

which are described in Section 3.3.7 of 

the Amendment 80 EA, specify 

objectives necessary for monitoring 

groundfish catch to ensure compliance 

with regulations governing the 

groundfish fishery and provide an 

authoritative, timely, and unambiguous 

record of quota harvested. These 

concerns do not extend to the use of an 

Amendment 80 vessel while fishing 

under the authority of a non-groundfish 

fishery management plan, such as the 

scallop fishery, with its own M&E 

requirements. 

Incidental catch of Amendment 80 

species and PSC by the F/V ALLIANCE 

while fishing in the scallop fishery 

should not be debited against 

allocations to an Amendment 80 

cooperative or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery to which the F/V 

ALLIANCE may be assigned while 

fishing in the BSAI. Likewise, 

additional catch by the F/V ALLIANCE 

of species subject to sideboard limits 

while fishing for scallops in the GOA 

should not be debited against GOA 

sideboard limits applicable to 

Amendment 80 vessels generally. 

Response: NMFS agrees in part and 

has modified the final rule to relieve 

specific M&E and catch accounting 

regulations when an Amendment 80 

vessel is using dredge gear while 

directed fishing for scallops. This 

change is not inconsistent with the 

Council’s intent or the FMP. NMFS 

notes that the suite of M&E measures, 

catch accounting provisions, and 

sideboard measures described in the 

final EA/RIR/FRFA were specifically 

developed to ensure catch accounting 

by Amendment 80 vessels operating in 

groundfish fisheries. There is no 

indication that non-groundfish fisheries 

were intended to be subject to M&E and 

catch accounting measures developed 

under the Program. 

The commenter provides a wellreasoned rationale for not applying 

specific M&E and catch accounting 

standards to a vessel that is engaged in 

a specific non-groundfish fishery. The 

commenter identifies one fishery, the 

scallop fishery, where one Amendment 

80 vessel, the F/V ALLLIANCE, could 

be used. The number of potential 

entrants into the scallop fishery is 

limited by the Scallop LLP, substantial 

controls on gear use exist, and the 

scallop fishery is carefully monitored by 

the State of Alaska. Furthermore, most 

participants in the scallop fishery have 

established an industry-based private 

contractual agreement to coordinate 

fishing operations. It is reasonable to 

assume that fishing effort would not 

increase should the F/V ALLIANCE 

replace a vessel currently operating in 

the scallop fishery. Additionally, other 

non-Amendment 80 vessels could be 

used to replace vessels in the scallop 

fishery, therefore the specific use of the 

F/V ALLIANCE in the scallop fishery 

should not have any effect on the 

scallop fishery that would differ from 

the use of any other replacement vessel. 

It is reasonable to assume that relieving 

an Amendment 80 vessel of specific 

M&E and catch accounting provisions 

applicable under the Program when that 

vessel is used for scallop fishing would 

not have any effect on either the scallop 

fishery or the Amendment 80 fishery 

which is not already considered and 

analyzed. 

However, the commenter also 

proposes relieving M&E and catch 

accounting standards on an Amendment 

80 vessel when it is not ‘‘directed 

groundfish fishing.’’ By using this term, 

the commenter seems to suggest that 

M&E and catch accounting requirements 

should be relieved for any Amendment 

80 vessel participating in any nongroundfish fishery such as the BSAI 

crab fishery, the halibut IFQ fishery, or 

while fishing for non-groundfish species 

such as grenadiers. NMFS determined 

that providing a general exemption from 

M&E, catch accounting, and sideboard 

limitations applicable under the 

Program for Amendment 80 vessels 

when not engaged in directed 

groundfish fishing could create the 

potential for Amendment 80 vessels to 

be used in non-groundfish fisheries in 

ways that cannot be easily anticipated. 

Furthermore, the commenter has 

specifically identified only one vessel 

and one fishery for which relief from 

Amendment 80 M&E and catch 

accounting regulations is specifically 

sought. 

Based on these factors, and the lack of 

any other comments from any other 

Amendment 80 vessel owners 

supporting a broad relief from M&E and 

catch accounting standards for other 

non-groundfish fisheries, NMFS 

relieved these restrictions only when an 

Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge 

gear while directed fishing for scallops. 

Because dredge gear is the authorized 

gear for scallop fishing, and is not used 

in other non-groundfish fisheries, this 

regulatory construction narrows the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52683 

applicability of this M&E and catch 

accounting exemption. In the future, if 

other Amendment 80 vessel owners 

identify specific non-groundfish 

fisheries in which they wish to use their 

vessels, the Council can review and 

consider such requests through the 

Council process. 

NMFS made the following changes to 

the regulatory text: 

• Revised § 679.7(o)(4)(iii) as 

renumbered based on the response to 

comment 5 to clarify that an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to a 

cooperative must maintain a CQ permit 

onboard unless that Amendment 80 

vessel is using dredge gear while 

directed fishing for scallops. 

• Revised § 679.7(o)(5)(iii) as 

renumbered based on the response to 

comment 5 to clarify that an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

must maintain an Amendment 80 

limited access fishery permit onboard 

unless that Amendment 80 vessel is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

• Modified § 679.7(o)(6)(i) to clarify 

that an Amendment 80 vessel is 

prohibited from failing to follow catch 

monitoring standards in the BSAI under 

§ 679.93(a), (b), and (c) if the 

Amendment 80 vessels is using any gear 

but dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

• Modified § 679.7(o)(6)(ii) to clarify 

that an Amendment 80 vessel subject to 

a GOA sideboard limit under § 679.92(b) 

and (c) is prohibited from failing to 

follow catch monitoring standards in 

the GOA under § 679.93(a), (b), and (d) 

if the Amendment 80 vessel is using any 

gear but dredge gear while directed 

fishing for scallops. 

• Modified § 679.92(b)(1) to clarify 

that GOA groundfish sideboard limits 

specified in Table 37 to this part do not 

apply when an Amendment 80 vessel is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops in the GOA. 

• Modified § 679.92(b)(2) by 

renumbering part of (b)(2) as (b)(2)(i) 

and inserting a new paragraph, (b)(2)(ii), 

to clarify that halibut PSC sideboard 

limits in Table 38 to this part do not 

apply when an Amendment 80 vessel is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops in the GOA. 

• Modified the introductory text to 

§ 679.93(c) to note that catch monitoring 

requirements for Amendment 80 vessels 

in the BSAI apply to all Amendment 80 

vessels except Amendment 80 vessels 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

• Modified the introductory text to 

§ 679.93(d) to note that catch monitoring 

requirements for Amendment 80 vessels 

in the GOA apply to all Amendment 80 

vessels except Amendment 80 vessels 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

• Modified § 679.93(e)(1)(i) to note 

that catch of Amendment 80 species by 

an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative is debited 

from that cooperative’s CQ permit 

unless that Amendment 80 vessels is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

• Modified § 679.93(e)(1)(ii) to note 

that catch of Amendment 80 species by 

an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery is 

debited from that ITAC for the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

unless that Amendment 80 vessels is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

• Modified § 679.93(e)(2)(i) to note 

that use of crab and halibut PSC by an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative is debited 

from that cooperative’s CQ permit 

unless that Amendment 80 vessels is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

• Modified § 679.93(e)(2)(ii) to note 

that use of crab and halibut PSC by an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery is 

debited from the crab and halibut PSC 

limit for the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery unless that Amendment 

80 vessels is using dredge gear while 

directed fishing for scallops. 

• Modified § 679.93(e)(3) to note that 

catch of Amendment 80 GOA sideboard 

species by an Amendment 80 vessel in 

the GOA is debited from the 

Amendment 80 sideboard limit except 

Amendment 80 sideboard species 

caught by Amendment 80 vessels using 

dredge gear while directed fishing for 

scallops. 

• Modified § 679.93(e)(4)(iii) to note 

that use of halibut PSC by an 

Amendment 80 vessel in the GOA is 

debited from the Amendment 80 

sideboard limit except halibut PSC used 

by Amendment 80 vessels using dredge 

gear while directed fishing for scallops. 

Additionally, NMFS modified the 

observer coverage regulations based on 

the comments concerning the potential 

for an Amendment 80 vessel to use nontrawl gear in the BSAI and thereby 

avoid observer coverage requirements 

that are intended to ensure adequate 

catch accounting. NMFS did not 

anticipate, or intend, that an 

Amendment 80 vessel could avoid 

required observer coverage by choosing 

not to use trawl gear in the BSAI. NMFS 

had assumed that Amendment 80 

vessels would continue to use trawl gear 

in the BSAI, and therefore applied 

observer coverage based on the use of 

that gear type. The commenter is correct 

in noting that nothing in the regulations 

would require an Amendment 80 vessel 

to use trawl gear to catch fish in the 

BSAI. NMFS notes that the commenter 

does not advocate relieving observer 

coverage requirements applicable to 

Amendment 80 vessels that may choose 

to use non-trawl gear, other than 

specifically for Amendment 80 vessels 

fishing in the scallop fishery. 

Section 1.10.6 of the final EA/RIR/ 

FRFA prepared for this action notes that 

NMFS must be able to ensure adequate 

catch accounting, particularly when 

monitoring at-sea discards and use of 

PSC, and notes the particular 

advantages offered by expanding 

observer coverage to ensure that all 

catch is properly observed. NMFS has 

modified section 1.10.6 of the final EA/ 

RIR/FRFA to clarify that observer 

coverage requirements are applicable to 

Amendment 80 vessels regardless of the 

specific gear type used, with the specific 

exemption made for an Amendment 80 

vessel using dredge gear while directed 

fishing for scallops. 

Based on these factors, NMFS made 

several modifications in observer 

coverage regulations at § 679.50 to apply 

observer coverage standards to 

Amendment 80 vessels as necessary for 

adequate catch accounting, and clarify 

that specific observer coverage does not 

apply to Amendment 80 vessels that 

may be fishing in the scallop fishery. 

Specifically, NMFS made the following 

changes: 

• Modified § 679.50(a)(8) to specify 

that observer regulations applicable to 

Amendment 80 vessels are found in 

§ 679.50(c)(6). 

• Modified § 679.50(c)(6)(i) to clarify 

that the observer standards in the BSAI 

apply to all Amendment 80 vessels 

using any gear but dredge gear while 

directed fishing for scallops and to 

catcher/processors not listed in 

§ 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear. This 

modification extends observer coverage 

to Amendment 80 vessels using any 

gear, such as longline gear in the Pacific 

cod fishery. 

• Modified § 679.50(c)(6)(ii) to clarify 

that the observer standards in the GOA 

apply to all Amendment 80 vessels 

using any gear but dredge gear while 

directed fishing for scallops, except for 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE. 

Section 679.21 

Comment 9: Section 679.21 of the 

proposed rule establishes halibut PSQ 

for the CDQ sector. No rationale exists 

in either the draft EA/RIR/IRFA or the 

proposed rule that justifies increasing 

CDQ halibut PSQ under the Program 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52684 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

while at the same time decreasing the 

halibut PSQ over time for the 

Amendment 80 sector. It is not clear 

why the CDQ Program should be 

granted this additional benefit of 

increased halibut PSQ. If the goal of the 

Program is, as stated, to reduce bycatch, 

then reducing halibut bycatch for the 

CDQ Program and the Amendment 80 

sector is the only alternative consistent 

with that goal. There is no biological or 

practical rationale for this double 

standard. Failure to treat the two sectors 

equally without a sound scientific basis 

potentially violates MSA National 

Standards 2 and 9. 

Response: The preamble to the 

proposed rule specifically addresses the 

rationale for increasing the allocation of 

halibut PSQ (72 FR 30062), and this 

rationale is further described in section 

1.10.3 of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 

prepared for the proposed rule. 

Generally, less than half of the halibut 

PSQ allocation to the CDQ Program has 

been used in any fishing year. However, 

CDQ groups have not traditionally 

harvested their full allocations of 

species such as rock sole, yellowfin 

sole, or other Amendment 80 species 

with higher halibut PSQ use rates. With 

the implementation of the Program, 

Amendment 80 vessels may have more 

flexibility to contract with CDQ groups 

to fully harvest the CDQ Program 

groundfish allocations, which may 

result in higher halibut bycatch. 

The biological rationale for the 

increase in the halibut PSQ is to 

accommodate anticipated increased 

harvest of Amendment 80 species by the 

CDQ Program and the attendant increase 

in halibut PSC use. The adjustment to 

the halibut PSQ allocation does not 

increase the total amount of halibut PSC 

that is used in the BSAI, it merely 

reapportions the amount of halibut PSC 

that is available to accommodate 

anticipated halibut PSC use by the CDQ 

Program. The commenter’s assertion 

that this reapportionment of halibut PSC 

somehow increases the overall bycatch 

of halibut is incorrect. 

NMFS is not applying a ‘‘double 

standard’’ to halibut PSC use between 

the Amendment 80 sector and the CDQ 

Program. The Council considered that 

by increasing the allocation of 

Amendment 80 species to CDQ groups, 

it became increasingly likely that CDQ 

groups would have a greater economic 

incentive to harvest a greater proportion 

of their Amendment 80 species CDQ 

allocations. NMFS notes that the 

increase of halibut PSQ to the CDQ 

Program is roughly proportional to the 

increase in the allocation of groundfish 

species TACs to the CDQ Program 

overall. The amount of certain 

groundfish TACs allocated to the CDQ 

Program has increased from 7.5 percent 

to 10.7 percent excluding fixed gear 

sablefish, pollock, and other species not 

subject to allocation. Overall, the total 

amount of groundfish allocated to the 

CDQ Program has increased. 

NMFS notes that halibut PSC is 

assigned to the CDQ Program for use in 

fixed gear fisheries and trawl fisheries. 

As described in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the amount of halibut 

PSQ assigned to the CDQ Program that 

is derived from the allocation to trawl 

gear under the Program would increase 

from 276 mt to 326 mt. The Program 

does not increase the allocation of 

halibut PSQ that is derived from the 

allocation to fixed gear. This is 

consistent with the fact that the increase 

in groundfish allocations to the CDQ 

Program are likely to be harvested using 

trawl gear, and any PSC needed to 

harvest the increased allocations should 

be derived from the overall amount of 

PSC available for use by trawl gear. 

Overall, the amount of the total trawl 

PSC limit assigned to the CDQ Program 

will increase from 7.5 percent to 8.9 

percent under the Program. This 

increase is relative, but not directly 

proportional to the increase in the 

amount of the groundfish allocations 

made to the CDQ Program. 

As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, NMFS anticipates that 

with the improved efficiencies that 

cooperative management could provide 

the Amendment 80 sector, it is likely 

that CDQ groups could more effectively 

partner with participants in the 

Amendment 80 sector to harvest the 

CDQ allocations. The increase in halibut 

PSQ is anticipated to provide adequate 

amounts of PSC for the CDQ Program 

without adversely affecting existing 

fishery participants. Specifically, 

section 1.11.5 provides a detailed 

description of current and historic PSC 

use and the use of PSC that would be 

anticipated as necessary to fully harvest 

allocations provided to the Amendment 

80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors 

given the allocation of PSC to the CDQ 

Program. These data do not indicate that 

PSC allocations are likely to constrain 

Amendment 80 or BSAI trawl limited 

access sector participants. Further, the 

Council recommended phasing in the 

increase in halibut PSQ in recognition 

of the fact that the CDQ groups may 

require several years before they 

develop harvesting capacity and 

markets necessary to fully harvest their 

increased allocation of Amendment 80 

species, and therefore would not require 

an increased allocation of halibut PSQ 

immediately. 

The allocations of halibut PSC to the 

Amendment 80 sector were reviewed in 

detail by the Council and are 

proportionate to the allocations of 

groundfish species, and were 

determined to be sufficient to allow the 

Amendment 80 sector to fully harvest 

its allocation of groundfish species. 

Furthermore, NMFS anticipates that 

vessel operators will be able to tailor 

their fishing operations to reduce the 

use of halibut PSC under cooperative 

management. 

The commenter’s assertion that 

increasing halibut PSQ violates MSA 

National Standard 2 ‘‘Conservation and 

management measures shall be based 

upon the best available information’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)), or National Standard 

9 ‘‘Conservation and management 

measures shall, to the extent practicable, 

(A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the 

extent bycatch cannot be avoided, 

minimize the mortality of such bycatch’’

(16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)), is not valid. The 

increased allocation of halibut PSC to 

the CDQ Program as halibut PSQ is 

based on a review of projected use of 

halibut PSQ by CDQ groups using the 

best available information on past and 

potential future harvest patterns and 

bycatch rates. As noted earlier, 

increasing the amount of halibut PSQ 

assigned to the CDQ Program does not 

increase the total amount of halibut 

bycatch used in the BSAI. However, 

overall the Program does minimize 

bycatch of halibut. NMFS did not 

modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 10: Under the Council’s 

recommendation for Amendment 85 to 

the FMP, it was understood that the 

catcher vessel trawl sector would be 

assigned a specific amount of halibut 

PSC distinct from the AFA trawl 

catcher/processor or Amendment 80 

sectors. Under the proposed PSC 

allocations in Amendment 80, it appears 

that the AFA catcher vessel, non-AFA 

catcher vessel, and the AFA catcher/ 

processor sectors will operate on the 

same halibut and crab PSC limits. Given 

the restrictions applicable to AFA 

catcher/processors this may not result in 

difficulties. However, during the annual 

specification process, the Council may 

find it difficult to apportion halibut and 

crab PSC among the participants within 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector. It 

is not yet clear how the annual 

specifications process will be altered to 

accommodate PSC apportionment in the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector. 

Response: The final rule 

implementing Amendment 85, 

published September 4, 2007, did not 

change how PSC is allocated among 

trawl sectors; the Council’s 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52685 

recommended modifications to PSC 

allocations were not approved by 

NMFS. The preamble to the proposed 

rule for Amendment 80 notes that the 

allocation of PSC under Amendment 80 

would supersede the allocation of PSC 

established by the final rule for under 

Amendment 85 (see 72 FR 30068). This 

final rule continues the use of the 

harvest specification process as the 

mechanism for apportioning halibut and 

crab PSC among the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector participants. NMFS notes 

that the Council did not envision or 

recommend that the Program retain any 

aspect of the apportionment of halibut 

and crab PSC recommended under 

Amendment 85 as the basis for 

apportioning PSC among participants in 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector. 

NMFS did not modify the regulations 

based on this comment. 

In order to be consistent with the rule 

implementing Amendment 85, and the 

fact that the preamble to the proposed 

rule for the Program explicitly noted 

that trawl PSC apportionments within 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

would not be affected by this action, 

NMFS does not intend to implement 

regulations that would apportion PSC in 

that sector. The annual specification 

process would continue to be used as 

the basis for assigning PSC. If the 

Council experiences difficulties with 

the allocation of halibut PSC during the 

annual specification process as the 

commenter suggests, the Council can 

initiate an action to address those 

difficulties. 

Comment 11: Segregate the crab and 

halibut PSC allocations to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector between the 

AFA catcher/processors and the catcher 

vessel sector (i.e., AFA and non-AFA 

catcher vessels), as was contemplated 

under Amendment 85. 

Response: As noted in the response to 

comment 10, the Program is not 

intended to implement PSC 

apportionments among the participants 

in the BSAI trawl limited access sector. 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 85, published on 

September 4, 2007, did not change the 

process for apportioning PSC limits 

among trawl fisheries and sectors. The 

annual specification process is the 

mechanism available to determine 

allocations of crab and halibut PSC 

among participants in the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector. NMFS did not 

modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Section 679.27 

Comment 12: Section 679.27(j)(3) sets 

forth proposed GRS regulations for 

improved retention and use of fishery 

resources. These proposed regulations 

would allow NMFS to calculate the GRS 

on either a vessel-specific basis for 

vessels in the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery, or as an aggregate based 

on the activities of all Amendment 80 

vessels assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative. The proposed regulations 

allow Amendment 80 vessels that 

cannot meet the GRS on a vesselspecific basis to ‘‘hide their discards’’

when they participate in an Amendment 

80 cooperative. These vessels will 

simply join a cooperative and be able to 

conceal the fact that they discard fish at 

a rate that would normally be a 

violation of the GRS. This is a form of 

smoke and mirrors that should not be 

sanctioned in these regulations. 

Moreover, such an approach raises 

questions of fundamental fairness and 

equality when the GRS is not applied to 

all Amendment 80 vessels. Allowing 

vessels to effectively hide discards in 

excess of the vessel-specific GRS by 

joining a cooperative would also appear 

to violate the MSA National Standard 9, 

which calls for true bycatch reductions. 

Response: The goal of the GRS 

regulations originally implemented 

under Amendment 79 to the FMP (71 

FR 17362) is to improve retention 

overall for the Amendment 80 sector. As 

noted in the preamble to the proposed 

rule to Amendment 80, the Program 

extends the GRS to vessels less than 125 

ft (36.1 m) length overall (LOA). The 

Program also provides an opportunity 

for vessel operators to choose to form 

cooperatives for which NMFS will 

calculate the GRS on an aggregate basis 

for all Amendment 80 vessels assigned 

to that Amendment 80 cooperative. 

These provisions are explicitly intended 

to provide all Amendment 80 vessel 

operators with a mechanism to combine 

catch, including discarded catch, with 

other Amendment 80 vessel operators to 

catch and process groundfish with the 

greatest efficiency and likelihood that as 

much groundfish as practicable is 

retained. 

This provision is not unfair and 

would not increase the discard of 

groundfish or allow Amendment 80 

vessels in a cooperative to hide their 

discards. Because the Program extends 

the GRS requirements to Amendment 80 

vessels of all sizes, a greater proportion 

of the total groundfish allocated to the 

Amendment 80 sector must be retained, 

thereby reducing groundfish bycatch 

and clearly meeting the objectives of 

National Standard 9. Furthermore, the 

choice of a vessel operator to join a 

cooperative and apply the GRS to all 

vessels in that Amendment 80 

cooperative is an option available to all 

Program participants. The Council 

specifically noted that once the GRS is 

extended to Amendment 80 vessels of 

all length classes, some vessels may 

have difficulty meeting the GRS on a 

vessel-specific basis in a cost-effective 

manner. The Council recommended 

applying the GRS on an aggregate basis 

so that vessel operators could choose to 

form an Amendment 80 cooperative so 

that the overall retention of all of the 

Amendment 80 vessels in the 

Amendment 80 cooperative meets or 

exceeds the GRS. Groundfish catch on 

all Amendment 80 vessels fishing for an 

Amendment 80 cooperative will be 

accounted to ensure that the catch by 

the cooperative in the aggregate is not 

less than the GRS. The net effect of this 

provision is that all catch by 

Amendment 80 vessels in the 

cooperative is counted and the amount 

of that catch retained is determined, just 

not an individual vessel-by-vessel basis 

if an Amendment 80 vessel is 

participating in a cooperative. This 

provision is incorporated in the rule and 

reduces bycatch for the Amendment 80 

sector overall while reducing some of 

the potential costs and complexities 

associated with GRS compliance. NMFS 

did not modify the regulations based on 

this comment. 

Section 679.28 

Comment 13: Section 679.28(i) 

addresses bin monitoring standards and 

options. It is not clear under 

§ 679.28(i)(1)(ii) whether vessel owners 

have the responsibility to ensure that 

only observers who are of average height 

between 64 and 74 inches (140 to 160 

cm) will be permitted on the vessel 

when utilizing the line of sight option. 

What is a vessel owner to do if an 

observer of less than (or greater than) 

average height is assigned to the vessel? 

Response: Section 679.28(i)(1)(ii) 

requires that vessel owners and 

operators ensure the line of sight option 

allows observers between 64 and 74 

inches (140 to 160 cm) tall be able to see 

all areas of the bin or tank where crew 

could be located. This standard is used 

to inspect and approve the line of sight 

option for bin monitoring. If an observer 

outside the average height range boards 

a vessel, reasonable accommodations 

will be discussed between the vessel 

owner, the observer, and NMFS during 

the precruise meeting. NMFS did not 

modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 14: The line of sight option 

(§ 679.28(i)(1)(ii)) does not address the 

issue of what standards, if any, must be 

met for a crew member to enter the tank 

if bin boards are removed to expose the 

bin to the observer’s view. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52686 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: The standard is clearly 

described in § 679.28(i)(1)(ii) and 

requires that from the observer sample 

station, or the location where the 

observer sorts and weighs samples, an 

observer of average height (between 64 

and 74 in (140 and 160 cm)) must be 

able to see all areas of the bin or tank 

where crew could be located preceding 

the point where the observer samples 

catch. Bin boards are used by vessel 

personnel to change the bin shape and 

configuration to maximize space or alter 

the flow of fish. However, bin boards 

between the catch and the location an 

observer samples could obstruct his or 

her view of crew activity inside the bin. 

If bin boards obstruct an observer’s view 

of these activities, then the line of sight 

standard is not being met. Therefore, the 

line of sight option is only available 

when the bin boards have been 

removed. If bin boards that obstruct an 

observer’s view are in place, the vessel 

operator must ensure that no crew enter 

the bin or tank unless the observer has 

been given notice someone will be 

entering the bin, the observer is given 

the chance to view the activities of the 

crew in the tank, the flow of fish has 

been stopped, and all fish have been 

removed between the tank and the 

location the observer collects their 

samples. NMFS did not modify the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 15: Section 679.28(i) 

provides that a bin monitoring option 

inspection report will be valid for 12 

months from the date it is signed by 

NMFS. There is no stated or apparent 

basis for limiting the validity of such a 

report to a 12-month period, effectively 

requiring annual inspections. Once an 

inspection has been performed, the 

inspection report should remain valid 

until changes are made to the bin or 

observer area onboard the vessel. An 

annual inspection for a vessel that 

utilizes the line of sight option should 

remain valid until changes are made to 

the factory or until such time as an 

observer indicates that he or she cannot 

view the bin via line of sight. Absent 

such changes, annual inspections are 

not warranted, and the cost associated 

with them is unduly burdensome and in 

violation of MSA National Standard 7, 

which requires minimization of costs 

and avoidance of unnecessary 

duplication. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that annual 

inspections are not warranted or are in 

violation of National Standard 7. 

Annual inspections for the bin 

monitoring option are required to 

ensure no changes have been made 

since the last inspection. Even minor 

modifications to the factory or the bin 

may change the flow of fish that can 

affect monitoring protocols, and require 

reapproval of a bin monitoring option. 

NMFS has made efforts to minimize 

costs and avoid unnecessary 

duplication. As an example, the bin 

monitoring inspections can occur 

simultaneously with the annual 

observer sample station inspection. 

Furthermore, NMFS notes that the bin 

monitoring inspection process 

established in the rule is the same 

process used for catcher/processor 

vessels that are operating under the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program, thereby 

further reducing costs for any 

Amendment 80 vessel participating in 

both LAPPs. These measures explicitly 

ensure consistent application of 

regulations, and minimize costs and 

avoid unnecessary duplication as much 

as possible, thereby meeting the 

requirements of National Standard 7. 

NMFS did not modify the regulations 

based on this comment. 

Comment 16: Section 

679.28(i)(1)(iii)(F) requires an owner or 

operator of a vessel that selects the 

video option to ensure that the video 

system has sufficient resolution to see 

and read a text sample in 130 point type 

from any location within the tank where 

crew could be located. The purpose of 

this regulation is to ensure that cameras 

will be able to capture images of 

sufficient quality for the observer to 

monitor crew activity in the tank. Being 

able to see and read text in 130 point 

type characters (about the size of a half 

dollar coin) goes well beyond being able 

to monitor what crew are doing in the 

tank. 

NMFS needs a standard with which to 

judge performance, but this standard is 

too constraining. Either double the font 

size to 260 point type or substitute 

another more suitable standard such as 

removing the font specification and 

require that cameras have adequate 

resolution for general fish identification. 

Font size has little bearing on whether 

the observer can differentiate categories 

of limiting species. 

Response: In order to provide NMFS 

staff with a means of objectively 

approving video options, and give 

observers a method to articulate 

visibility concerns with vessel 

personnel, an objective standard is 

required. Font size was selected as the 

objective standard because of the 

general availability of a specific font 

size to the public. NMFS staff has 

approved three vessels selecting the 

video option (§ 679.28(i)(1)(iii)) under 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program 

using the same standards in this rule 

and has found the standard may be met 

with available, reasonably priced 

technology. While the NMFS continues 

to investigate improved standards for 

determining the adequacy of video 

installations, NMFS is unable to specify 

a better standard at this time. NMFS did 

not modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Section 679.50 

Comment 17: In §§ 679.50(c)(6) and 

679.93(c), the observer and flow scale 

requirements are particularly 

burdensome to the smaller operators. 

While the range of costs are discussed, 

there appears to be little justification for 

these costs when weighed against the 

marginal increase in information that 

will be made available to NMFS as a 

result, especially when dealing with 

smaller vessels. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s conclusion that the 

increase in information from observer 

coverage and flow scale requirements do 

not justify the costs. NMFS has 

attempted to balance the monitoring and 

enforcement requirements to be costeffective, manageable, and effective. The 

final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this 

action does identify the benefits of the 

increased monitoring requirements. 

Section 2.3.7 notes that ‘‘[b]ecause 

Amendment 80 monitoring 

requirements would include flow scales, 

observer stations, observation of every 

haul, and additional requirements 

described above; some improvements to 

management [of] catch accounting may 

also occur. For example, direct 

measurement of weight on a flow scale 

is likely to be more reliable than 

observer measurements based on 

volumetrics and density.’’ More 

accurate catch accounting ensures that 

CQ and Amendment 80 limited access 

ITAC amounts are properly debited 

based on the best available information. 

Section 1.10.6 of the final EA/RIR/ 

FRFA notes that ‘‘[p]resently, many 

vessels in the H&G fleet [Amendment 80 

sector] are required to carry only one 

observer. Generally, this results in less 

than 100 percent of the hauls being 

sampled. Under the Amendment 80 

requirement for two observers, all hauls 

would be sampled. NMFS would no 

longer need to rely on secondary 

sources, such as the skipper’s estimates 

or total weekly production figures, as 

the basis for calculating catch weight for 

H&G vessels. This would decrease the 

number of hauls NMFS would need to 

extrapolate for this fleet.’’

For example, if a vessel operates on 

the fishing grounds for several weeks 

and has less than 100 percent of its 

hauls observed, some of the bycatch 

calculations for that vessel are based on 

bycatch rates derived from other 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52687 

observed hauls and applied to the total 

catch determination. If NMFS has haulspecific information from observer 

sampling, improved information on 

actual bycatch amounts would supplant 

the use of data based on a rate from 

other observed hauls. The extension of 

coverage to two observers per vessel 

would allow every haul to be sampled 

and could reduce risks associated with 

the timing of openings and closings for 

some groundfish fisheries (i.e., decrease 

the probability that stocks would be 

overfished or underharvested). Higher 

levels of observer coverage ensure 

adequate catch accounting for vessels 

assigned to cooperatives. The benefits of 

additional observer coverage apply to 

both larger and smaller vessels. 

Currently, vessels 125 feet (38.1 m) LOA 

or longer must carry an observer at all 

times. However, smaller vessels less 

than 125 feet (38.1 m) LOA are only 

required to carry an observer for 30 

percent of their fishing days. The 

incremental increase in the amount of 

management data associated with 

increased observer coverage on vessels 

less than 125 feet (38.1 m) LOA is far 

greater than with larger vessels. NMFS 

will no longer be required to extrapolate 

data to unsampled hauls on smaller 

vessels, thereby resulting in better 

management decisions. NMFS did not 

modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Section 679.90 

Comment 18: Section 679.90(d)(1) 

notes that Amendment 80 QS units will 

be assigned based on the Amendment 

80 vessel’s legal landings for each 

Amendment 80 species in each 

management area. For purposes of 

calculating legal landings, 

§ 679.90(d)(i)(B) of the proposed rule 

states that the five calendar years 

between 1998–2004 with the highest 

amount of legal landings are to be used. 

This calculation method gives an unfair 

and disproportionate advantage to 

companies who have an erratic catch 

history or no catch at all for some years. 

As such, this is not a fair and equitable 

distribution method as required by the 

MSA. 

Response: As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, this calculation 

method was selected to accommodate 

harvesters who may have been active in 

the fishery, but who may have had 

reduced catch, or no catch during a 

specific year due to factors beyond their 

control such as mechanical problems, 

weather conditions, poor harvests, or 

unanticipated closures in the fishery. 

Using this weighted average calculation 

method for all participants, including 

those with consistent harvest patterns, 

will result in QS allocations that reduce 

the effects of years with reduced 

harvests relative to other years. This 

method for computing QS is applied 

equally to all Amendment 80 sector 

participants with legal landings. 

Because the same calculation method is 

applied to all participants, the argument 

that this calculation method is somehow 

disproportionately advantageous or 

disadvantageous to any one participant, 

or group of participants is not valid. As 

an example, a vessel that had consistent, 

but poorer catch in several years, would 

yield QS that is based on a weighted 

average of the best five of seven years 

of catch from that vessel. Vessels with 

limited or sporadic catch would 

likewise yield QS based on a weighted 

average of catch, but the QS derived 

from such a vessel would still reflect the 

relatively limited participation of that 

vessel. NMFS did not modify the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 19: Eliminate the provision 

in section 679.90(d)(1)(iii) that states 

that Amendment 80 vessels that did not 

have any legal landings between 1998–

2004 will be assigned 0.5 percent of the 

total QS issued for BSAI rock sole and 

BSAI yellowfin sole. This provision 

would result in three vessels being 

granted an allocation of rock sole and 

yellowfin sole despite the fact that they 

failed to meet the legal landing 

requirements imposed on all other 

vessels in the Program. Two of these 

three vessels no longer exist and have 

not participated in the fishery for over 

a decade. This provision creates a 

double standard by which some vessels 

are required to satisfy the legal landing 

requirements while others are not. This 

provision violates the fair and equitable 

distribution requirements of the MSA. 

Response: As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, the three vessels 

referred to in the comment meet the 

statutory participation criteria in the 

Amendment 80 sector as an 

Amendment 80 vessel according to the 

CRP. However, the years recommended 

by the Council to allocate QS, and 

incorporated in the rule, would 

foreclose the ability of QS to be issued 

based on the historic catch history of 

these vessels, even though Congress 

clearly intended that those vessels 

would be eligible to participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector. The Council 

recommended, with the input of the 

Amendment 80 sector participants, to 

provide a relatively small and fixed 

allocation of Amendment 80 QS based 

on the eligibility of these vessels 

according to the CRP instead of 

readjusting the years used to allocate 

QS. The rule implements that 

recommendation. 

The allocation of QS to these vessels 

is specifically intended to provide a fair 

and equitable opportunity to participate 

for all eligible Amendment 80 vessels, 

while considering and accommodating 

those participants with unique harvest 

patterns. Although the method of 

allocating QS to these Amendment 80 

vessels differs from the method used for 

other vessels, the EA/RIR/FRFA (see 

ADDRESSES) and proposed rule provided 

the rationale for this decision. The 

preamble to the proposed rule indicates 

that although the Council considered 

alternative methods to allocate QS that 

would accommodate the historic catch 

patterns of these three vessels, the 

Council recommended an allocation 

that would provide a minimal but 

measurable amount of QS that may be 

used to allow these vessel operators to 

continue to participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector. NMFS did not 

modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 20: Three Amendment 80 

vessels without legal landings during 

the 1998 through 2004 qualifying years 

will be issued a specific amount of QS. 

Assign all Amendment 80 vessels a 

minimum amount of QS in addition to 

historic legal landings. 

Response: The Council considered a 

range of criteria when determining the 

minimum amount of QS to be issued 

based on the catch history of a specific 

vessel. The Council did not recommend 

and the rule does not implement a 

minimum QS issuance for all 

Amendment 80 vessels. The purpose of 

the allocation to the three Amendment 

80 vessels described by the comment is 

provided in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and in response to 

comment 19. NMFS did not modify the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 21: Modify § 679.90(d)(i) to 

incorporate the entire catch history for 

all vessels that qualify under the 

Program. Limiting the allocation to the 

years 1998–2004 unfairly penalizes 

long-term participants in the fishery, 

while rewarding short-term speculative 

participants. Failure to consider the full 

catch history of all participants in the 

Program violates principles of 

fundamental fairness. The choice of the 

years 1998–2004 appears to give a much 

greater emphasis, and thus a greater 

allocation, to new or more recent 

participants in the fishery, at the 

expense of those who have an 

established presence in this fishery. 

Both the MSA and the Amendment 80 

draft EA/RIR/IRFA indicate that recent 

catch history shall be considered in 

allocation programs. However, the 

selection of the years 1998–2004 for this 

Program severely slants the allocations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52688 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

in favor of recent entrants. Cutting off 

consideration of all catch history prior 

to 1998 ignores the investments made 

by companies pioneering these fisheries. 

Participants took a substantial risk in 

building ships and developing markets 

to replace the foreign ships operating off 

the coast of Alaska at that time. Limiting 

catch history to the years 1998–2004 

effectively negates the effort and 

commitment of early entrants, and there 

is no justification in the Amendment’s 

analysis for ignoring the complete catch 

history in making species allocations 

under the Program. This is contrary to 

MSA National Standard 4, which 

requires fair and equitable allocation of 

fishing privileges. 

Response: The Council spent 

considerable time reviewing catch 

patterns in the fishery. The Council 

considered a wide range of factors that 

have been described in the final EA/ 

RIR/FRFA, the Council record, and in 

the preamble to the proposed rule. 

Section 303(b)(6) of MSA requires that 

both historic and current participation 

patterns be considered when allocating 

fishery resources. Both recent and 

historic harvest patterns were 

considered and numerous opportunities 

were provided to Amendment 80 sector 

participants to recommend the specific 

methods used to allocate QS. 

The Council and NMFS examined 

historic and recent catch patterns before 

recommending the allocation ultimately 

selected. The final EA/RIR/FRFA 

prepared for this action notes that 

harvest patterns from 1995 through 2004 

were considered in various 

combinations. There are several factors 

that were considered in determining 

allocations to the Amendment 80 sector. 

First, the CRP notes that only vessels 

that were active from 1997 through 2001 

are eligible to participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector. Including years 

prior to 1997 could potentially include 

the legal landings of vessels that are not 

eligible to participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector. Including the 

legal landings for those vessels would 

provide QS allocations based on the 

activities of vessels that Congress 

specifically determined should not be 

able to continue to participate. 

Second, including legal landings prior 

to 1998 only for Amendment 80 vessels 

would likely shift the allocation of QS 

from more recent participants to more 

historic participants. As with all QS 

allocations, the Council endeavored to 

balance historic and recent participants. 

Including legal landings prior to 1998 

would likely have the effect of 

increasing the QS allocations to longer 

term participants but would provide 

less QS to Amendment 80 vessels that 

are currently active. The net effect of 

such a change would be to allocate an 

amount of QS to current participants 

that is not representative of current 

participation patterns. The Council 

attempted to ensure that vessels that are 

currently active in the fishery are able 

to continue to operate in a fashion 

representative of their dependence and 

use of the fishery. Shifting the allocation 

of QS to favor vessels active more than 

ten years before the Program would 

defeat that goal. Section 303(b)(6) of the 

MSA notes that in developing a limited 

access system, such as the Program, the 

Council and NMFS take into account 

present participation in the fishery, 

historical fishing practices, and 

dependence on the fishery. The MSA 

does not define these terms, or require 

that the Council or NMFS weight one 

measure over another. The Council and 

NMFS did consider historic and recent 

participation and dependence. The 

Council determined that allocating QS 

based on legal landings some eight years 

prior to Council action, and likely ten 

years prior to the implementation of the 

Program reasonably considered historic 

participation and dependence. 

Third, NMFS also notes that 

allocating QS based on legal landings 

during the time period prior to 1998 

could result in relatively few long-term 

participants receiving a relatively large 

proportion of the overall QS allocated to 

the Amendment 80 sector. Depending 

on the way in which catch prior to 1998 

would be considered this could result in 

a particular individual or corporation 

receiving a much larger share of QS 

relative to their current fishery patterns. 

This raises a concern that such an 

allocation method would not be fair and 

equitable to other fishery participants, 

could result in such an individual or 

corporation acquiring an excessive share 

of QS, and would contravene National 

Standard 4. 

Fourth, a review of catch patterns in 

the final EA/RIR/FRFA of Amendment 

80 vessels indicates that the number of 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processors, and 

amount of Amendment 80 species TAC 

taken by those vessels is relatively 

consistent throughout the 1998 through 

2004 time period. This suggests that 

participation patterns during this time 

period are most reflective of a 

reasonable range of historic and recent 

participation. For example, in the 

yellowfin sole fishery, during the 1995 

through 1997 time period an average of 

28 non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 

retained 64 percent of the total TAC. 

During the 1998 through 2004 time 

period an average of 22 non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors retained 90 percent 

of the TAC, indicating a fewer number 

of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 

retained a greater proportion of the total 

TAC. The Council and NMFS observed 

similar catch and participation patterns 

for the other Amendment 80 species. 

Catch and participation patterns prior to 

1998 do not appear reflective of long 

term trends after 1998. 

Fifth, the Council noted that there 

have been substantial changes in the 

fishery due to the implementation of the 

AFA beginning in 1998. The AFA 

effectively excludes almost all non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors from 

participating in the directed pollock 

fishery, and limited those vessels 

eligible in the AFA to specific sideboard 

limits. This change in fishery 

management shifted catch patterns 

dramatically. Amendment 80 vessels 

increased their harvests of Amendment 

80 species, and AFA vessels focused 

their catch on pollock. Management 

prior to 1998 is not representative of 

management changes that resulted from 

the enactment of the AFA. 

The seven year time frame used to 

allocate QS included the most recent 

year of participation for which records 

were available at the time of Council 

action (2004) as well catch as early as 

1998, which was best thought to 

represent the traditional harvest 

patterns of the Amendment 80 sector. 

The Council’s recommendation does not 

violate principles of fundamental 

fairness. NMFS did not modify the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 22: An Amendment 80 LLP 

license is assigned QS (i.e., an 

Amendment 80 QS/LLP license) if an 

Amendment 80 vessel is lost or becomes 

permanently ineligible to fish. The 

regulations allow the CQ derived from 

an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license to be 

fished on an existing Amendment 80 

vessel. That Amendment 80 QS/LLP 

license will be assigned to a 

cooperative. This would allow a vessel 

owner to ‘‘stack’’ Amendment 80 QS/ 

LLP licenses on a vessel so long as that 

vessel owner did not exceed the 30 

percent use cap. This stacking of 

Amendment 80 QS/LLP licenses on a 

vessel could be used to leverage others 

who are seeking to form a cooperative. 

This goes against the Council’s intent to 

limit the amount of consolidation in the 

industry. 

Response: The Council spent 

considerable time attempting to balance 

cooperative formation standards so that 

the interests of single and multiple QS 

permit holders were balanced. In 

particular, the Council adopted 

measures to ensure that holders of 

single QS permit would have the ability 

to reasonably negotiate with multiple 

QS permit holders to ensure an 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52689 

equitable distribution of costs and 

revenues in a cooperative arrangement. 

The ability to purchase Amendment 80 

QS/LLP licenses and use the resulting 

CQ or ITAC does not necessarily result 

in any greater ability to form a 

cooperative. A minimum number of 

unique entities and QS permits must be 

assigned to form a cooperative. 

Cooperative formation would be limited 

if consolidation occurred that made 

meeting these requirements difficult. It 

is not clear how consolidation of 

permits would necessarily provide a 

greater advantage to a person holding 

multiple QS permits because other 

persons holding QS permits must 

choose to form a cooperative with that 

person. If the minimum requirements 

cannot be met to form a cooperative, 

Amendment 80 QS permit holders can 

assign those permits to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery. 

The Program provides an opportunity 

for persons to hold and transfer QS 

permits, subject to specific limits, but 

within those limits the choice to 

consolidate permits is made by the 

potential transferor and the transferee. 

There is no requirement that an 

Amendment 80 QS/LLP license holder 

has to transfer that license to another 

person. The Council did not recommend 

and the rule does not implement a 

requirement that an Amendment 80 

LLP/QS license be assigned only to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative, and the 

comment provides no rationale why it 

would need to be. As an example, the 

holder of an Amendment 80 QS/LLP 

license could choose to enter into a 

contract with participants in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

and receive compensation for the ITAC 

derived from that Amendment 80 QS/ 

LLP license. NMFS did not modify the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 23: For no discernable 

reason, replacement vessel provisions 

are absent from the proposed rule. This 

is a serious omission that was not 

addressed or explained anywhere in the 

proposed rule even though Section 

1.11.13.4 in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 

assumes that replacement vessels will 

be allowed. There is no explanation for 

the rationale of such a drastic and 

unprecedented step. 

NMFS has indicated that section 

219(a)(7) of the CRP limits the vessels 

that can participate in the Amendment 

80 sector. NMFS has incorrectly 

interpreted this provision of the CRP. 

Section 219 of the CRP should not be 

interpreted to create a defined class of 

vessels. Had Congress wished to limit 

participation by a group of vessels, they 

would have used the same language as 

was used in the AFA. A clear 

distinction needs to be made between 

qualifying participants, which is what 

the CRP addresses, and the vessels used 

to qualify. 

Response: The proposed rule does not 

address, or create provisions for 

replacement vessels in the event an 

Amendment 80 vessel suffers an actual 

total loss or constructive total loss, 

because Congress did not provide for 

such a provision in the CRP. The 

preamble to the proposed rule clearly 

describes the criteria that Congress 

established for allowing a person to fish 

in the Amendment 80 sector under the 

CRP (72 FR 30057). In addition, NOAA 

General Counsel provided a series of 

memoranda to guide the Council in the 

development of the Program that 

specifically address this issue. Those 

memoranda are appended to the final 

EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action 

(see ADDRESSES). 

The criteria to participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector are clearly 

established in the CRP. For purposes of 

participation in the catcher/processor 

sector of the BSAI non-pollock 

groundfish fishery, section 219(a)(7) of 

the CRP states: 

(7) Non-AFA Trawl Catcher Processor 

Subsector.—The term ‘‘non-AFA trawl 

catcher processor subsector’’ means the 

owner of each trawl catcher processor—

(A) That is not an AFA trawl catcher 

processor; 

(B) To whom a valid LLP license that 

is endorsed for Bering Sea or Aleutian 

Islands trawl catcher processor fishing 

activity has been issued; and 

(C) That the Secretary determines has 

harvested with trawl gear and processed 

not less than a total of 150 metric tons 

of non-pollock groundfish during the 

period January 1, 1997 through 

December 31, 2002. 

It is quite clear from the language 

used in the definition of the non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processor subsector (i.e., 

Amendment 80 sector) that there are 

three criteria for eligibility in the sector. 

Additionally, it is clear from the 

language used that all the criteria must 

be met by the owner of a trawl catcher/ 

processor in order to be eligible for the 

Amendment 80 sector given Congress’

use of the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of 

subsection 219(a)(7)(B). 

The statutory language used in 

§ 219(a)(7) or in other sections of the 

CRP does not include words that permit 

the Council or NMFS to amend 

Congress’ enumerated qualification 

criteria. Additionally, there is no 

statutory language in § 219(a)(7) or 

elsewhere in the CRP that would permit 

the application of more restrictive, or 

more lenient, qualification criteria by 

the Council or NMFS. Congress did not 

provide the Council or NMFS with any 

ability to make adjustments to the 

specific statutory criteria addressing 

eligibility in the Amendment 80 sector. 

The criteria as to who is eligible to be 

a member of the Amendment 80 sector 

has been decided by Congress, and the 

Council and NMFS cannot select or 

impose different eligibility requirements 

for entrance to the Amendment 80 

sector. 

Persons who are eligible to participate 

in the Amendment 80 sector are those 

persons who, at the time of 

participation, own a trawl catcher/ 

processor that meets the statutory 

criteria at § 219(a)(7)(A) and (C), and 

who has been issued a valid LLP license 

is endorsed for Bering Sea or Aleutian 

Islands trawl catcher/processor fishing 

activity for the trawl catcher/processor 

that meets the criteria in § 219(a)(7)(A) 

and (C). The criteria for trawl catcher/ 

processors at § 219(a)(7)(A) and (C) will 

qualify a finite number of vessels for the 

Amendment 80 sector. 

NOAA provided the Council and the 

public with a review of the CRP that 

addressed the inability for vessels not 

meeting the criteria of the CRP to be 

used to participate in the fishery. The 

Council clearly understood that no 

vessels other than those that meet the 

criteria established in the CRP could be 

used to fish in the Amendment 80 sector 

and that there was not a provision in the 

CRP to allow vessels not meeting the 

criteria established by Congress to 

replace those that did. 

Throughout the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 

the terms ‘‘qualified vessel’’ or ‘‘eligible 

vessel’’ are used to describe the 28 

vessels that have been identified in 

Table 31 to Part 679 that meet the 

criteria established in sections 

219(a)(7)(A) and (C) of the CRP. Other 

than Section 1.11.13.4 of the draft EA/ 

RIR/IRFA, there is no suggestion that 

any vessels other than the 28 defined 

‘‘qualified vessels’’ or ‘‘eligible vessels’’

could be used to fish in the Amendment 

80 sector. Section 1.11.13.4 in the draft 

EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the proposed 

rule is misleading and has been 

corrected in the final EA/RIR/FRFA to 

make it clear that this section does not 

describe the potential use of 

replacement vessels to fish in the 

Amendment 80 sector. 

Section 1.11.13.4 is intended to 

describe the requirement that 

Amendment 80 vessel holders must 

meet any time a person designates a 

vessel on an LLP license if that vessel 

wasnt previously designated on that 

LLP license. Specifically, this section 

notes that the existing maximum length 

overall (MLOA) requirements of the LLP 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52690 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

license continue to apply to any vessel 

designated on an LLP license. The use 

of the term ‘‘replacement vessel’’ is 

intended to refer to a vessel that is 

newly designated on an LLP license. 

Although the use of this term may have 

caused confusion, this section does not 

describe a process for replacing an 

Amendment 80 vessel. NMFS has 

revised this section of the analysis to 

make it clear that it is intended to 

describe the use of LLP licenses on 

specific vessels, and not to suggest that 

vessels other than those vessels meeting 

the clear criteria established by 

Congress in sections 219(a)(7)(A) and 

(C) of the CRP can participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector. NMFS did not 

modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 24: If a person is eligible to 

receive QS and decides not to 

participate in the Amendment 80 sector, 

then his share of the amount of the 

‘‘resource’’ derived from his QS should 

be allowed to be used in the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery. This provision 

would be particularly important in 

those cases where the QS holder decides 

that the advantages offered by 

Amendment 80 are outweighed by the 

disadvantages. 

Response: The Council did not 

recommend, and this rule does not 

implement, a provision that allows 

Amendment 80 QS and the ITAC that 

could be derived from that Amendment 

80 QS to be reassigned to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector. The Council 

explicitly considered and rejected a 

provision that would have allowed 

ITAC to be reallocated from the 

Amendment 80 sector to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector during the 

development of the Program. The 

Council rejected this provision due to 

the difficulty in reassigning catch, 

specifically CQ from the Amendment 80 

sector to the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector. 

NMFS agrees that a person who is 

eligible to receive QS may choose not to 

apply for that QS, not become a 

participant of the Amendment 80 sector, 

and therefore choose to participate in 

another sector, such as the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector, subject to the 

limitations on participation in that 

sector. The decision to do so would be 

made on a case-by-case basis. NMFS did 

not modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 25: Provide a greater 

allocation to the Amendment 80 sector 

based on both historic and recent catch 

and PSC use patterns. The allocations 

provided to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector are more than adequate to 

support the needs of that sector and 

should not be increased. An increase in 

allocations to the Amendment 80 sector 

is supported by comparing the 

allocations made under the Program to 

the historic current use of Amendment 

80 species and PSC by the Amendment 

80 and BSAI trawl limited access 

sectors. 

Response: The Council considered a 

range of alternatives when making the 

allocations to the Amendment 80 and 

BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The 

rule implements allocations among 

fishery participants in accordance with 

the MSA and in consideration of a range 

of factors summarized in the final EA/ 

RIR/FRFA prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). See response to comment 

21 for additional detail on the years 

selected for determining catch history 

allocation. NMFS did not modify the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Section 679.91 

Comment 26: Remove from 

§ 679.91(a)(1) the requirement that a 

person assign all Amendment 80 

vessels, QS permits, and LLP licenses to 

only one Amendment 80 cooperative or 

the limited access fishery. This 

provision was never discussed by the 

Council, which opted to provide the 

sector with the flexibility to form 

multiple cooperatives. Given the total 

number of companies and the varying 

number of vessels that each entity 

controls, some companies may need to 

have the flexibility to split their vessels, 

LLP licenses, and QS permits among 

more than one cooperative. In order to 

maximize the possibility that all vessels 

find like-minded operations with which 

to form up to three effective 

cooperatives, the ‘‘all in’’ rule should be 

eliminated to allow an Amendment 80 

vessel owner the opportunity to 

determine how to best structure his or 

her operation to maximize the benefits 

that may be derived from cooperative 

management. The ‘‘all in’’ rule coupled 

with the other cooperative formation 

requirements would hinder, rather than 

enhance, the sector’s ability to form 

cooperatives. 

Response: As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, consistent with the 

FMP, NMFS proposed this provision to 

encourage participants in the 

Amendment 80 Program to form 

cooperatives. NMFS proposed similar 

provisions in other LAPPs to facilitate 

administrative oversight by limiting the 

number of cooperative arrangements 

that need to be tracked, and to provide 

an incentive to participants to either 

join a cooperative or the limited access 

fishery with all QS permits, thereby 

making a decision to join a cooperative 

more attractive. However, as indicated 

in the comment, members of the 

Amendment 80 sector indicate that due 

to the particular structure of their 

business arrangements, this provision 

would frustrate, rather than encourage 

cooperative formation. NMFS has 

therefore made the following changes: 

• Modified § 679.91(a)(1)(i) to require 

that each calendar year, an Amendment 

80 QS holder must designate those 

Amendment 80 QS permits, associated 

Amendment 80 vessels, and 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses that the 

Amendment 80 QS holder wants to be 

in the cooperative or Amendment 80 

limited access fishery on a timely and 

complete application for CQ or 

application for the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. This 

modification provides a person the 

opportunity to choose which 

Amendment 80 QS permit held by the 

person to assign to an Amendment 80 

cooperative or to the limited access 

fishery; 

• Modified § 679.91(a)(1)(ii) to state 

that NMFS will assign the Amendment 

80 QS permit(s), associated Amendment 

80 vessel(s) and Amendment 80 LLP 

license(s) held by an Amendment 80 QS 

holder to either the Amendment 80 

cooperative(s) or Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery as designated by the 

Amendment 80 QS holder; 

• Modified § 679.91(a)(1)(iii) to 

remove references regarding the 

assignment of all Amendment 80 QS 

permits, associated Amendment 80 

vessels, and Amendment 80 LLP 

licenses held by a person to a specific 

Amendment 80 cooperative or the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery; 

and 

• Modified § 679.91(h)(3)(xi) and 

(h)(3)(xii) to clarify that a person 

holding multiple Amendment 80 QS 

permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, 

or owning multiple Amendment 80 

vessels is not required to assign all 

Amendment 80 QS permits, 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or 

Amendment 80 vessels to the same 

Amendment 80 cooperative or the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

Comment 27: The provision in 

§ 679.91(h)(3)(xi), that requires a holder 

of multiple Amendment 80 QS permits, 

LLP licenses or vessels to assign all such 

permits, licenses or vessels to a single 

cooperative for a given calendar year, is 

an unnecessary and unwarranted 

infringement upon the companies’

ability to form effective working 

cooperatives. Multi-vessel companies 

may have good reasons for assigning 

different vessels to different 

cooperatives, based on vessel 

configuration or other concerns. 

Denying companies the opportunity to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52691 

assign their various permits, licenses, 

and vessels in the ways that best meet 

their needs, in keeping with historical 

practices and economic considerations, 

unfairly limits their ability to effectively 

participate and compete in the industry. 

The risk of an unfair competitive 

advantage is negligible. 

Response: This comment has been 

addressed in response to comment 26. 

Comment 28: Add a new paragraph to 

§ 679.91(a)(3)(ii) that states that if a 

person fails to submit a timely and 

complete application for CQ or the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

for an Amendment 80 QS permit, 

associated Amendment 80 vessel, and 

Amendment 80 LLP license, NMFS will 

assign that Amendment 80 QS permit, 

associated Amendment 80 vessel, and 

Amendment 80 LLP license to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

This would allow for a default 

opportunity to fish in the limited access 

fishery, even if a deadline for an annual 

application declaring the intent to fish 

in the limited access fishery was 

missed. 

Vessels need to be designated on each 

CQ application annually; however, it is 

‘‘draconian’’ to prohibit a vessel owner 

from fishing in the limited access 

fishery if he forgets to meet an 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

application deadline. If this change is 

not possible, then the disposition of the 

ITAC derived from the Amendment 80 

QS from a person not meeting a limited 

access fishery application deadline 

should be allocated among Amendment 

80 cooperatives. Alternatively, the 

unused QS could be allocated on a pro 

rata basis between each cooperative and 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. 

Response: NMFS proposed this 

provision to encourage persons to 

submit timely information indicating 

the use of QS permits, Amendment 80 

vessels, and LLP licenses for each year. 

NMFS needs to know which QS 

permits, vessels, and licenses are used 

in each cooperative and the limited 

access fishery. A similar provision is 

used in the BSAI crab LAPP. However, 

in the unlikely event that a person fails 

to submit a timely application for a QS 

permit, NMFS can assign any ITAC 

derived from that QS permit, and the 

associated Amendment 80 vessels and 

LLP licenses, to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. This would still 

provide that Amendment 80 sector 

participant with an opportunity to fish. 

NMFS has modified § 679.91(a)(3) by 

renumbering existing § 679.91(a)(3) as 

(a)(3)(i) and editing that paragraph to 

remove reference to the application for 

an Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery, and inserting a new paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii) to clarify that if an application 

is not submitted to NMFS for an 

Amendment 80 QS permit, that permit, 

and the associated Amendment 80 

vessel and LLP license will be assigned 

to the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. NMFS notes that with this 

change, NMFS will not need to modify 

the mechanism for allocating ITAC or 

halibut or crab PSC within the 

Amendment 80 sector as described at 

§ 679.91(c), (d), and (e). 

Comment 29: Section 679.91(a)(2) 

provides that any QS permits or units 

assigned to an Amendment 80 QS 

holder after NMFS has issued CQ or 

ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector for 

the calendar year will not result in any 

additional CQ or ITAC being issued. 

While the proposed regulations comply 

with constitutional due process 

requirements by providing an appeals 

process, there is no way for a QS holder 

who prevails in such an appeal to be 

made whole. When NMFS makes an 

error in the allocation of CQ or ITAC, 

issuance of the correct amount the 

following calendar year does not correct 

the damage done in the previous year. 

If NMFS is shown to have made an error 

in allocation, it should be liable to the 

QS holder for lost income during the 

calendar year at issue. Assuming 

nothing could be done to make the 

correction during the year in question, 

the most logical way to correct such an 

error would be to give the QS holder 

additional quota for the following year. 

Without such a provision in the event 

of an allocation error, the proposed rule 

does not guarantee due process. 

Response: The comment reflects an 

incorrect interpretation of this 

provision. Section 679.91(a)(2) 

addresses the situation that could arise 

should a successful appeal or operation 

of law result in NMFS issuing QS after 

NMFS has issued CQ or ITAC for a 

calendar year. This provision states that 

NMFS will not reissue CQ or ITAC to 

accommodate QS issued after this date. 

As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, this provision is 

necessary to ensure that all other fishing 

operations are not disrupted with the 

addition of new QS that would require 

reissuing a smaller amount of CQ and 

ITAC to all other Amendment 80 sector 

participants. As an example, reducing 

CQ allocations mid-year to 

accommodate new QS holdings could 

create a situation where a cooperative 

has fully harvested its CQ, but 

readjustment by NMFS to reallocate CQ 

could cause that cooperative to exceed 

its CQ and violate regulations due to 

factors beyond its control. Reallocating 

CQ away from existing participants 

could severely impact the reasonable 

expectations of industry. NMFS issues 

CQ and ITAC based on the amount of 

QS held by a person at the time of 

application for CQ or application for the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

and is not required to readjust CQ or 

ITAC allocations mid-year. 

Concerns regarding the potential for 

NMFS to err in the issuance of CQ or 

ITAC to a QS holder and the 

recommendation that NMFS provide 

compensation to a QS holder are not 

warranted. First, it is highly unlikely 

that such an error would occur given the 

limited number of QS holders and the 

review mechanisms for issuing ITAC 

and CQ. Second, even if such an error 

did occur, it would likely be evident 

before fishing began and NMFS could 

reissue CQ or ITAC prior to fishing. 

Third, Section 303A(i(1)) of the MSA 

notes that any LAPP ‘‘for which a 

Council has taken final action * * * 

within 6 months after the date of 

enactment of the [MSRA]’’ is subject to 

the provisions of section 303(d) of the 

MSA prior to amendment by the MSRA. 

Section 303(d)(3)(B) prior to amendment 

by the MSRA clarifies that a limited 

access system authorization such as the 

Program ‘‘may be revoked or limited at 

any time in accordance with [the 

MSA].’’ Section 303(d)(3)(C) prior to 

amendment by the MSRA notes that a 

limited access system authorization 

‘‘shall not confer any right of 

compensation to the holder of such 

individual fishing quota or other such 

limited access system authorization if it 

is revoked or limited.’’ NMFS made no 

changes to the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 30: Section 679.91(c) 

describes the process by which 

Amendment 80 species would be 

allocated to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector and the Amendment 80 

sector. The rule proposes using total 

catch rather than retained catch to 

determine the allocations. This is a 

fundamentally flawed methodology that 

rewards those who have historically had 

the highest discards and does nothing to 

reward those who have diligently 

worked to retain more fish onboard their 

vessels. This allocation method unduly 

benefits the smaller vessels in the BSAI, 

who have been high-grading for years 

due to smaller factory size, and 

penalizes larger vessels. The MSA 

National Standard 9 specifically 

addresses the issue of lowering discards 

and increasing retention. The proposed 

allocation method runs contrary to the 

MSA’s mandate, and as such, would 

appear to be in violation of the statute. 

Response: The Council and NMFS 

considered a variety of methods and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52692 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

factors to allocate QS including 

differential catch patterns among larger 

and smaller vessels, historic and current 

participation, and fishery-specific 

characteristics. The Council considered 

these factors before recommending the 

specific QS allocation method 

implemented in the rule. Among the 

factors considered was that smaller 

Amendment 80 vessels typically are less 

able to fully retain all catch due the 

limited space for processing machinery 

and product storage, and the need to 

race for fish with larger vessels that 

have a greater harvesting and processing 

capacity. The race for fish may have 

encouraged smaller vessels to discard 

more fish relative to larger vessels to 

ensure more valuable product was 

processed before the fishery closed. 

Consistent with section 303(b)(6) of the 

MSA, the Council considered these 

historical fishing practices when 

allocating fishing privileges and 

determined that allocating QS based on 

total catch would provide a fair and 

equitable distribution of QS. 

Allocating QS is not inconsistent with 

National Standard 9 that requires NMFS 

to minimize bycatch and reduce the 

mortality of that bycatch to the extent 

practicable. The method used to allocate 

QS under the Program does not in any 

way increase bycatch or the mortality of 

such bycatch. Quota share allocated to 

a person allows a person an opportunity 

to catch a portion of the annual TAC 

either through assigning that QS to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative or 

participating in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. The percentage of 

catch retained by a person is not 

determined by the amount of QS 

allocated to that person, but by the 

specific operations of a given vessel and 

crew. NMFS made no changes to the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 32: Section 679.91(c) states 

that each calendar year NMFS will 

determine the tonnage of Amendment 

80 species to be assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative or limited 

access fishery, but does not provide a 

deadline when NMFS will make those 

assignments. If these assignments are 

not made by the end of September of 

each year, companies will be unable to 

plan accordingly and make sound 

business decisions for the coming 

season. 

Response: Under the current harvest 

specification process, NMFS establishes 

the BSAI and GOA TACs well in 

advance of fishing. As noted in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, TACs 

have already been established for 2008 

and are published in the Federal 

Register (72 FR 9451; March 2, 2007). 

While it is true that these TAC 

allocations may be changed through the 

annual harvest specification process, 

adjustments to the 2008 harvest 

specifications would be recommended 

by the Council in December 2007, and 

would likely not supersede existing 

harvest specifications until March 2008. 

The industry does have substantial 

certainty about the amount of TAC 

available for harvest. In addition, NMFS 

notes that even though the 2008 harvest 

specifications may be adjusted by the 

Council in December 2007, the industry 

will have several months to review the 

scientific data, participate in the 

Council process, and modify fishing 

operations before those final 

specifications become effective. 

NMFS notes that the process for 

establishing and adjusting annual 

harvest specifications is wellestablished. Participants have long been 

making sound business decisions within 

the constraints imposed by this process. 

The Program does not alter the timing 

of the annual harvest specification 

process that defines the TAC. 

Participants in LAPPs such as the AFA, 

and the halibut and sablefish IFQ, have 

demonstrated a consistent ability to 

operate under these constraints. 

Additionally, once QS is issued to a 

person, QS permit(s) clearly indicate the 

percentage of the total QS pool, and 

therefore the percentage of the ITAC 

that may be assigned based on that QS, 

which further facilitates business 

planning. NMFS made no changes to the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 33: Section 679.91(c)(3)(iii) 

describes the procedure by which the 

CQ for BSAI Atka mackerel will be 

assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives 

under the proposed rule. This provision 

allocates Atka mackerel to vessels that 

are not economically dependent upon 

the resource. These vessels 

predominantly harvested Atka mackerel 

in Management Area 541/BS as bycatch 

while fishing in other fisheries. 

Historically, most of the Atka mackerel 

caught in Area 541/BS was caught by 

large catcher/processors. Vessels with 

no directed fishing history in the 

mackerel fishery should receive 

mackerel QS based strictly on their 

bycatch history. 

Atka mackerel from Area 541/BS has 

traditionally been larger and of higher 

value than mackerel from Areas 542 or 

543. As a result, this allocation method 

takes Area 541 mackerel away from 

those who have a directed fishing 

history in the fishery and causes more 

economic harm than ‘‘taking away’’

allocations of Atka mackerel in Areas 

542 or 543. If an allocation is needed to 

meet the bycatch needs of these smaller 

‘‘non-mackerel vessels,’’ it should be 

made in the form of an incidental 

bycatch allocation managed by NMFS. 

Response: As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, the Council 

considered a range of options when 

allocating Atka mackerel ITAC between 

the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 

limited access sectors. Historic and 

recent catch patterns and opportunities 

for new entrants and fishery dependent 

communities were among the factors 

considered. The Council is not obligated 

to recommend, and NMFS is not 

obligated to make, allocations based 

solely on one criterion. The Council 

considered the traditional catch patterns 

of vessels when making its 

recommendations to allocate Atka 

mackerel QS. As the commenter notes, 

many smaller Amendment 80 vessels 

historically participated in Area 541/BS. 

Rather than allocate Atka mackerel QS 

in a manner that would require these 

relatively smaller vessels to move into 

areas not historically fished (i.e., Areas 

542 and 543), the Council recommended 

allocating Atka mackerel QS 

proportional to the areas in which 

harvests occurred. As noted in the final 

EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action, 

this allocation method would not be 

expected to shift fishing effort 

substantially for larger vessels that have 

historically harvested a greater 

proportion of Atka mackerel in Areas 

542 and 543. 

Additionally, the commenter suggests 

that the allocation of Atka mackerel to 

smaller vessels should be based only on 

their non-directed fishery harvests, or 

incidental catch, whereas larger vessels 

should be allocated QS based on their 

total catch. The commenter does not 

provide a rationale for using a different 

allocation method for non-mackerel 

vessels. As noted in the response to 

comment 31, the Council chose to 

allocate QS based on total catch rather 

than retained catch. The commenter’s 

suggestion would apply a different 

standard to smaller vessels than larger 

vessels, with the net effect being that 

smaller vessels would receive a smaller 

allocation of QS relative to larger 

vessels. 

The Council considered all applicable 

National Standards when 

recommending allocations under the 

Program (see section 4 in the final EA/ 

RIR/FRFA for additional detail). As an 

example, National Standard 5 requires 

that NMFS consider economic 

efficiency, ‘‘except that no measure 

shall have economic allocation as its 

sole purpose’’ (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(5)). 

National Standard 6 of the MSA 

requires that NMFS ‘‘take into account 

and allow for variations among, and 

contingencies in, fisheries, fishery 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52693 

resources, and catches’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(6)). National Standard 8 also 

requires that NMFS ‘‘provide for the 

sustained participation of such 

communities’’ (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8)(A)). 

NMFS did not modify the regulations 

based on this comment. 

Comment 34: Allow Amendment 80 

and PSC species that are projected to be 

unused by the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery to be reallocated or 

‘‘rolled over’’ to Amendment 80 

cooperatives ensures that the TAC is 

utilized to the fullest extent possible. 

This could be accomplished by adding 

a new paragraph (f) to § 679.91 that 

mirrors the mechanism for rolling over 

unused ITAC from the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery and renumber the 

following paragraphs accordingly. 

Amendment 80 provides for rollovers 

of Amendment 80 species and PSC 

species from the BSAI limited access 

fishery. The draft EA/RIR prepared for 

the proposed rule states that ‘‘the 

purpose of the rollover program is to 

ensure that the TAC is utilized, to the 

fullest extent possible.’’ This is 

consistent with Council policy as well 

as with MSA National Standard 1. The 

Council specifically authorized the 

rollover only to the Amendment 80 

cooperatives as an additional incentive 

for eligible sector participants to join a 

cooperative. 

The proposed rule as currently 

written does not allow rollovers of 

unutilized fish from the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery to Amendment 80 

cooperatives. Even though we anticipate 

that most companies will join 

cooperatives, the potential exists for 

stranding fish in the limited access 

fishery. This is particularly true if a 

company with a relatively large QS 

allocation were to decide to fish in the 

limited access fishery without the 

flexibility of the cooperative system. Not 

allowing a mechanism to access 

underutilized ITAC runs counter to 

National Standard 1, as well as general 

Council policy. 

Response: The Council did not 

recommend a provision to allow 

rollover of potentially unused catch 

from the Amendment 80 trawl limited 

access sector to Amendment 80 

cooperatives. NMFS assumes that 

because the Council explicitly 

recommended a rollover only from the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, and not 

from the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery, it did not intend to provide 

such a provision. Amendment 80 to the 

FMP specifically describes the rollover 

process from the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector to Amendment 80 

cooperatives and this FMP provision is 

implemented by the final rule (see 

Section 3.7.5.3 of the FMP as amended 

by Amendment 80). Amendment 80 to 

the FMP does not contain a similar 

provision for rolling over catch from the 

Amendment 80 limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

NMFS discussed the lack of this 

rollover provision at two public 

workshops, one on May 23, 2007 (72 FR 

27798), and another on June 18, 2007 

(72 FR 31548), both of which were 

attended by numerous participants in 

the directly regulated industry and a 

member of the Council. Further, NMFS 

provided a review of the proposed rule 

to the Council at its June 2007 meeting 

(72 FR 26606) and specifically 

highlighted this issue and requested that 

the Council provide comments if the 

proposed rule contravened Council 

intent. 

The Council did not indicate at that 

meeting that it intended to allow catch 

from the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery to be rolled over to the 

Amendment 80 cooperatives and the 

Council did not submit comments to 

NMFS during the public comment 

period suggesting that NMFS include 

that provision in the FMP amendment 

and final rule. If the Council had 

intended such a provision, the Council 

could have provided NMFS with 

comments specifically stating so. 

NMFS determined that allowing a 

rollover from the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector and not the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery is reasonable. 

The BSAI trawl limited access sector 

has not historically harvested 

Amendment 80 species to the same 

degree as the Amendment 80 sector and 

it is more likely that the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector will not fully 

harvest its allocations of Amendment 80 

species. However, participants in the 

Amendment 80 sector, including any 

participants in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery, have traditionally 

participated in these fisheries and have 

the ability and expertise to fully harvest 

Amendment 80 species. This makes it 

much less likely that there will be 

unharvested ITAC in the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery. Furthermore, 

given the fact that participants in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

are likely to be able to fully harvest their 

allocations of ITAC, NMFS may have 

difficulty determining when 

participants in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery are finished, and 

that could put NMFS in a position of 

prematurely closing the limited access 

fishery. 

Given these factors, the lack of a 

rollover provision does not prevent the 

ability of the Amendment 80 sector to 

maximize catch and achieve optimum 

yield on a continuing basis. National 

Standard 1 states that ‘‘Conservation 

and management measures shall prevent 

overfishing while achieving on a 

continuing basis, the optimum yield 

from each fishery for the United States 

fishing industry’’ (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)). 

The absence of a rollover mechanism 

from the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery to Amendment 80 cooperatives 

would not encourage overfishing. NMFS 

will monitor catch by the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery using the same 

M&E standard applicable to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives and will 

close the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery to avoid overfishing. Participants 

may choose not to join a cooperative 

and efficiently harvest the allocation in 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. 

Because the CRP and the Program 

limit the number of participants in the 

Amendment 80 sector, it is likely that 

some participants will form 

cooperatives, and some will not. 

Because the number of participants is 

limited, the possibility of private 

contractual arrangements among 

participants in the Amendment 80 

limited access sector increases. 

Participants in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery could voluntarily 

develop methods to coordinate fishing 

operations and ensure even more 

efficient harvests. Even if such 

voluntary arrangements are not entered 

into, the management of the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery is 

expected to be very similar to fishery 

management prior to the Program. 

Fishery management prior to this rule is 

in full compliance with the MSA, 

including National Standard 1. NMFS 

did not modify the regulations based on 

this comment. 

Comment 35: Section 679.91(f) 

provides certain provisions for the 

rollover of Amendment 80 species 

allocations, crab PSC, and halibut PSC 

from the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

There is no such provision for rollover 

from the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. The concept of rollover from the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

was not addressed in the Council 

motion and was not made part of the 

Amendment’s analysis. It is 

inappropriate and unwarranted to 

introduce such a notion until it has been 

proven that such a rollover provision is 

needed. The Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery will be a relatively small 

portion of the overall Amendment 80 

Program, and as such, under NMFS 

resource management, it should have 

little or no unharvested allocations. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52694 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Moreover, it would be extremely 

difficult for NMFS Inseason 

Management to effectively manage the 

rollover process. In particular, the 

difficulty in determining when 

participants in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery are ‘‘done’’ could 

put NMFS in a position of prematurely 

closing the limited access fishery. In 

short, this type of rollover provision is 

both unwarranted and unworkable, and 

should not be introduced into the final 

rule. 

Response: NMFS agrees that a 

provision for a rollover from the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery is 

not warranted, as discussed in response 

to comment 34. 

Comment 36: Section 679.91(f)(2) 

provides a list of factors to be 

considered by NMFS when reallocating 

or ‘‘rolling over’’ Amendment 80 species 

or PSC from the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector to Amendment 80 

cooperatives. Among the factors to be 

considered are risk of biological harm, 

socioeconomic well-being of 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, 

administrative requirements to reissue 

CQ permits and any other relevant 

biological, socioeconomic, or 

administrative factors. 

It is unclear how NMFS will apply or 

interpret these factors. What standards 

will be used to assess the risk of 

biological harm? How will the 

‘‘socioeconomic well-being’’ of the 

Amendment 80 cooperatives be 

evaluated? How will the risk of 

socioeconomic harm to other domestic 

fishery participants be measured? How 

will each of these factors be weighed 

and prioritized? 

In short, these questions and the 

many others raised by this provision are 

another example of how the proposed 

rule fails to thoroughly consider and 

address the details of how this Program 

will be administered. This particular 

provision could have significant 

ramifications for the Amendment 80 

cooperatives if rollover allocations were 

to be challenged by the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector. The factors 

presented in this provision are 

extremely subjective and ambiguous in 

nature, which could invite litigation on 

the issue of rollover allocations. The 

lack of clarity in this provision is yet 

another reason for delaying 

implementation of the Program until 

details such as this have been fully 

addressed. 

Response: Under § 679.91(f)(1), the 

term ‘‘may’’ allows the Regional 

Administrator the discretion to 

reallocate a portion of an ICA or ITAC 

of an Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, 

or halibut PSC amount assigned to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives if the 

amount assigned to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector is projected not to 

be harvested or used. As proposed, 

§ 679.91(f)(2) would have required that 

the Regional Administrator ‘‘will’’

consider specific factors when deciding 

whether he ‘‘may’’ rollover ITAC or 

PSC. As noted by the commenter, the 

requirement to consider all the 

proposed listed factors could increase 

the amount of time required to initiate 

a rollover. Should the Regional 

Administrator decide to reallocate 

catch, it needs to be done in a timely 

fashion to prevent disruption the 

industry, potential economic harm, or 

unnecessary discards. Also, the fishing 

industry benefits from the earliest 

possible notification of a rollover to 

plan its fishing operations. 

As the commenter notes, requiring the 

Regional Administrator to consider all 

the factors under § 679.91(f)(2) through 

a formal analysis could delay a 

reallocation. NMFS does not intend to 

prepare a formal analysis of all of the 

listed criteria. Such an analysis would 

substantially increase the amount of 

time required to reallocate fishery 

resources within a fishing season and 

would undermine the ability of NMFS 

to ensure the effective harvest of fishery 

resources. Therefore, NMFS has 

changed the requirement to consider 

these factors in § 679.91(f)(2) to an 

indication that NMFS may consider the 

factors listed in § 679.92(f)(2) when 

reallocating an ICA, a directed fishing 

allowance of an Amendment 80 species, 

or crab PSC, or halibut PSC amounts 

from the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

This change better meets with the intent 

of this provision, which is to ensure that 

NMFS can reallocate fishery resources 

during the fishing year to ensure the 

TAC is harvested. This change does not 

limit NMFS to consider only existing 

harvest and processing patterns before 

making any reallocation. This change is 

also consistent with the discretionary 

authority of NMFS to manage fishery 

resources for the net national benefit. 

Comment 37: Remove from 

§ 679.91(h)(1) the requirement to admit 

members to a cooperative subject to the 

terms and agreements that apply to the 

members of the cooperative as 

established in the agreement or contract 

governing the conduct of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative. Under the 

multiple cooperative structure in 

Amendment 80, the mandatory 

admission provision is not necessary 

and cooperatives should be able to 

determine their membership without 

mandatory admission requirements. The 

proposed rule language requiring 

mandatory admission into a cooperative 

had its origins in other cooperative 

LAPPs, which operate either under a 

single cooperative model or have other 

limiting characteristics such as 

processor linkages. 

Amendment 80 allows up to three 

voluntary cooperatives to form, 

providing eligible persons multiple 

opportunities to form alliances with 

other eligible and like-minded entities. 

The Council deliberately did not choose 

a single cooperative model. Instead, 

recognizing the diversity in company 

size, vessel size, and targeting strategies 

of the Amendment 80 fleet, the Council 

provided for up to three cooperatives 

(i.e., each cooperative having at least 

three unique non-affiliated entities and 

assigned at least nine QS permits). 

Cooperative membership is voluntary, 

and every eligible entity has multiple 

opportunities to form alliances that 

balance the members’ needs while 

assuring that the responsibilities of the 

cooperatives are met. 

Response: NMFS agrees that this 

requirement is not required under the 

Program and has removed it from 

§ 679.91(h)(1). This requirement was 

inserted into the proposed rule based on 

the regulations for the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program. The Central GOA 

Rockfish Program allows catcher vessel 

operators to form cooperatives only in 

association with specific processors. As 

a condition of this requirement in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program, the 

cooperatives were structured to ensure 

that any person that was eligible to form 

a cooperative in association with a 

specific processor could do so. No 

similar requirement for linkage with a 

specific processor exists in the Program. 

Inserting this provision in the 

Program based on the requirements of 

another LAPP with different 

characteristics is an oversight, is not 

necessary, and would adversely affect 

the ability of Amendment 80 sector 

participants to form cooperatives as 

intended by the Program. NMFS notes 

that this requirement was not 

recommended by the Council during the 

development of the Program. 

Amendment 80 sector participants can 

form cooperative relationships with any 

other participant in the Amendment 80 

sector. As such, there is no need to 

require a person be accepted by a 

cooperative. 

Comment 38: Do not remove the 

provision in § 679.91(h)(1) that states 

that an Amendment 80 cooperative 

must allow an eligible person to join the 

cooperative subject to the terms and 

agreements that apply to the members of 

the cooperative as established in the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52695 

agreement or contract governing the 

cooperative. 

This provision should not be removed 

because of the potential for the 

relatively small number of QS holders to 

use this provision to conduct unfair 

business practices and manipulate the 

cooperative program for their own 

financial gain. If a cooperative were able 

to exclude otherwise eligible persons 

from joining the cooperative, then a 

group of like-minded people could gain 

an unfair competitive advantage. 

Otherwise qualified persons who are 

denied entry to a cooperative would be 

forced into the limited access fishery, 

depriving them of millions of dollars 

worth of rollover fish from the BSAI 

trawl limited access fishery. 

Response: NMFS determined that this 

provision is not necessary and is 

inconsistent with the intent of the 

Program for the reasons provided in 

response to comment 37. Furthermore, 

NMFS notes that each participant has 

the ability to form a cooperative with 

other Amendment 80 QS holders 

without a provision requiring that other 

cooperative members accept that 

participant. The Council specifically 

designed the Program to encourage 

fishery participants to negotiate and 

cooperate in order to receive an 

exclusive harvest privilege of CQ. It is 

not clear how fishery participants 

would receive a competitive advantage 

from being able to exclude members. 

There are numerous fishery participants 

with whom to form voluntary 

cooperatives and receive the potential 

benefits of cooperative management. 

Numerous comments noted that 

requiring cooperatives to accept 

members who are otherwise unable or 

unwilling to reach agreement with other 

fishery participants would frustrate the 

intent of the Program. 

Furthermore, NMFS notes that 

although unharvested catch from the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector may be 

reallocated to participants in 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, that 

reallocation is not guaranteed to occur, 

and will not occur if the catch is 

harvested by participants in the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. NMFS also 

notes that with the change in the 

regulations concerning the delivery of 

unsorted catch to Amendment 80 

vessels in response to comment 5, any 

participant in the Amendment 80 sector, 

whether in an Amendment 80 

cooperative or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery, may receive 

unsorted catch from the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector and benefit 

economically from the receipt and 

processing of that catch. The regulations 

do not limit any participant in the 

Amendment 80 sector from offering 

processing markets to participants in the 

BSAI trawl limited access fishery and 

deriving economic benefit from that 

sector. For these reasons, NMFS made 

no changes to the regulations based on 

this comment. 

Comment 39: Section 679.91(h)(1) 

provides that members may leave an 

Amendment 80 cooperative, but if they 

choose to do so, any CQ contributed by 

the Amendment 80 permit(s) held by 

that member will remain with the 

cooperative for the duration of the 

calendar year. Under this provision, a 

cooperative member who finds the 

cooperative relationship is not working 

or is financially detrimental to the 

company has no choice but to remain in 

the cooperative or forego its quota for 

the year. There is no apparent reason for 

this measure, and no apparent reason 

why members should not be allowed to 

transfer from one cooperative to another 

or be allowed to withdraw from the 

cooperative and enter the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery. 

Section 679.91(h)(3)(xv) contemplates 

modification of cooperative agreements 

or contracts during the fishing year. 

Thus it would appear that a 

modification allowing for the exit of a 

cooperative member would be possible. 

Forcing a member to remain in a 

cooperative that is detrimental to its 

own interests or surrender its quota 

would appear to violate constitutional 

due process protections and 

prohibitions on the taking of property 

without compensation. 

Response: As explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, the 

Program is structured so that exclusive 

harvest allocations are made to 

cooperatives, not to the Amendment 80 

QS permit holder. This allocation 

method has been used in other LAPP 

programs such as the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program. This method ensures 

that once made, cooperative allocations 

cannot be adversely affected by the 

actions of one member of the 

cooperative. As an example, once NMFS 

makes an allocation to a cooperative, it 

would undermine the ability of a 

cooperative to effectively operate if one 

member of the cooperative unilaterally 

chose to withdraw CQ midseason. This 

could result in the cooperative 

exceeding its CQ amount and adversely 

affect all other members of the 

cooperative. 

Cooperatives can transfer CQ between 

one another using the transfer 

provisions at § 679.91(g). The Council 

did not recommend and the rule does 

not implement, provisions to allow a 

person to withdraw CQ once issued to 

a cooperative. Persons joining 

cooperatives can establish private 

contractual arrangements to compensate 

members if certain conditions are not 

met by the cooperative or specific 

members of the cooperative. These 

private contractual arrangements can 

adequately address specific issues of 

compensation or other factors without 

revising the cooperative management 

structure in a manner not intended by 

the Program. Cooperative members 

freely enter into the cooperative. 

Requiring the CQ that is issued to that 

cooperative to remain assigned to the 

cooperative does not violate due 

process. NMFS issues CQ permits to 

cooperatives, not individuals. The issue 

of compensating permit holders has 

been addressed in response to comment 

29. NMFS made no changes to the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 40: Section 679.91(h)(3)(ii) 

requires that a minimum of nine 

Amendment 80 QS permits is needed to 

form a cooperative. This standard is 

unrealistic and unworkable. A 

minimum of four permits would be 

more realistic, especially in light of the 

fact that while there is a quota use cap 

of 30 percent, there is no limit to the 

number of permits that can be 

consolidated under one vessel owner, as 

long as the use cap is not exceeded. This 

consolidation of permits under one or 

two owners would allow them to 

control the formation of cooperatives 

and extort unfair compensation from 

companies who may not want to do 

business with them, but are forced to 

pay them in order to conduct business 

under the Program. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

assertion that this standard is 

unreasonable and unworkable. The 

Council chose the minimum number of 

permits required after reviewing options 

available to allow cooperatives to form 

using lower standards. The Council 

reviewed the complexity of multispecies 

groundfish management under 

cooperative management, the effect of 

the size of a cooperative on quota 

management, negotiating strategies that 

may arise under certain cooperative 

formation criteria, and other factors 

before recommending the standard 

incorporated in this rule (see Section 

1.11.7 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA). The 

Council recommended a minimum 

number of QS permits that is intended 

to encourage cooperative formation, yet 

minimize the complexities that arise 

with smaller allocations in multispecies 

fisheries. 

The commenter’s concern that QS 

permits could be consolidated by a 

small number of harvesters and 

disadvantage other QS permit holders 

appears unlikely given the anticipated 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52696 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

costs and complexity of completing 

such a transaction. It is not clear how a 

lower minimum standard of QS permits 

necessary to form a cooperative would 

alleviate the commenter’s concern about 

consolidation. In addition to a 

minimum number of QS permits, at 

least three unique non-affiliated entities 

must be members of a cooperative for it 

to be allowed to form. Reducing the 

number of QS permits necessary to form 

a cooperative does not modify this 

standard. 

NMFS notes that cooperative 

formation is not required to effectively 

participate in the Amendment 80 sector. 

If a QS holder is not willing or able to 

meet the demands of cooperative 

formation, the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery remains a viable option 

for that QS holder. NMFS made no 

changes to the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 41: Allow formation of 

cooperatives by any single company that 

has two or more vessels, as in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program. Section 

679.91(h)(3)(iii) requires a minimum of 

three unrelated Amendment 80 QS 

holders to form a cooperative. There are 

only 13 unique entities that will qualify 

as Amendment 80 QS holders. 

Assuming two cooperatives have four or 

more QS holders in them, this suggests 

that three cooperatives will form. If one 

assumes, as the Amendment 80 analysis 

suggests, that one result of the Program 

will be consolidation of companies, the 

total number of separate entities could 

drop to six or fewer, resulting in only 

one or two cooperatives. Asking this 

fiercely competitive industry to form 

only three or four, or perhaps even 

fewer, cooperatives is impractical, and 

could give rise to unscrupulous 

business practices. This would present 

a company with no choice but to join an 

unfriendly cooperative or be forced into 

the limited access fishery. 

Under the Central GOA Rockfish 

Program, any single company that has 

two or more vessels is allowed to form 

a cooperative. As noted earlier, even 

with these more liberal rules regarding 

cooperative formation, only two 

cooperatives were formed in the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program in 2007. Had the 

Council and the drafters of the proposed 

rule been able to see what transpired in 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program with 

respect to the formation of cooperatives, 

they would almost certainly have 

allowed single companies to form their 

own cooperatives in Amendment 80. 

As written, the proposed rule will 

inhibit the formation of cooperatives 

and promote skullduggery within the 

industry to the point where some 

participants may be the victim of unfair 

business practices. Participants may 

exclude selected participants from 

joining all cooperatives and force them 

into the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery so that all of the rollover of PSC 

and Amendment 80 species from the 

BSAI trawl limited access fishery would 

go directly to the cooperatives. These 

rollovers could amount to millions of 

dollars worth of fish. Such large 

financial incentives are certainly more 

than enough motive for the other 

companies to ‘‘freeze out’’ selected 

participants. 

Response: The Council recommended 

and the rule implements a minimum 

number of unique entities for 

cooperative formation in order to 

encourage participants in the 

Amendment 80 sector to work 

collectively to efficiently harvest 

resources, minimize bycatch, and 

provide an opportunity for smaller 

vessel operators to coordinate with 

larger vessel operators to minimize the 

potential costs of GRS compliance. The 

final EA/RIR/FRFA describes the 

criteria considered by the Council in 

recommending three unique entities be 

required to form a cooperative. The 

Council sought to balance the desire of 

smaller vessel operators to form 

alliances with larger operators. The 

fewer the number of persons required to 

form a cooperative, the more likely that 

larger numbers of cooperative would 

form, increasing management and 

administrative costs, and potentially 

creating situations in which smaller 

operators cannot effectively negotiate 

with larger operators to form 

cooperative arrangements. Conversely, 

requiring a large number of unique 

persons to form a cooperative could 

reduce the likelihood of cooperative 

formation significantly because a larger 

number of persons would need to agree 

on a range of operational issues. The 

Council considered a minimum of three 

unique entities as a reasonable number 

to encourage collaborative 

arrangements. 

Some participants may engage in a 

series of negotiating strategies to form 

cooperatives, and nothing in the rule 

prevents a participant from likewise 

forming alliances and establishing 

cooperatives with similarly situated and 

interested entities. Cooperative 

formation is intended to result in parties 

reaching mutual consensus on a host of 

factors to encourage efficiencies of scale. 

No participant is precluded from that 

process by the rule. If other participants 

in the Amendment 80 sector choose not 

to form cooperative relationships with a 

specific participant, the limited access 

fishery provides an option for that 

participant. If only that participant is 

assigned to the limited access fishery, 

that participant could effectively 

coordinate his own operations within 

the limited access fishery and de facto 

receive many of the benefits likely to 

accrue to cooperative members. 

Amendment 80 was not directly 

patterned after the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program. The conditions that 

either encourage or inhibit cooperative 

formation in the Central GOA Rockfish 

Program are not necessarily applicable 

to the Program. NMFS made no changes 

to the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 42: Section 

679.91(h)(3)(viii) states that only 

Amendment 80 vessels can catch an 

Amendment 80 cooperative’s CQ. It is 

conceivable that Amendment 80 QS 

could be issued to an Amendment 80 

LLP license that is not associated with 

an Amendment 80 vessel (where, for 

instance, the Amendment 80 vessel has 

sunk and is considered a total loss). If 

the Amendment 80 QS holder in such 

a case does not meet the requirements 

set forth in the proposed rule for joining 

a cooperative, or for whatever reason 

does not wish to join a cooperative or 

is otherwise unable to join a 

cooperative, it is unclear what will 

happen to any ITAC that could be 

derived from that QS permit. The only 

alternative to joining a cooperative is to 

participate in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. However, only 

Amendment 80 vessels are allowed to 

fish in the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. Without an Amendment 

80 vessel to fish the QS, an Amendment 

80 QS/LLP license is effectively 

worthless. This deprivation of such an 

Amendment 80 QS/LLP license holder’s 

significant property right raises serious 

questions about due process and 

unconstitutional takings. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

holder of an Amendment 80 QS/LLP 

license would not assign that license to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. NMFS agrees that only 

Amendment 80 vessels can participate 

in the Amendment 80 sector in 

accordance with the CRP. If the holder 

of an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license is 

unable to make some arrangement with 

the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel 

participating in an Amendment 80 

cooperative or the limited access 

fishery, then the Amendment 80 QS/ 

LLP license holder could not harvest the 

fish derived from that license. However, 

nothing would preclude the holder of an 

Amendment 80 QS/LLP license from 

establishing a private contractual 

arrangement with a harvester in an 

Amendment 80 cooperative or in the 

limited access fishery to harvest the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52697 

ITAC derived from that Amendment 80 

QS/LLP license. As noted in the 

response to comment 29, QS confers a 

privilege, not a property right, and is not 

subject to compensation. NMFS made 

no changes to the regulations based on 

this comment. 

Comment 43: Section 

679.91(h)(3)(xvi) does not allow for 

‘‘balancing out’’ the CQ account of a 

cooperative if or when the cooperative 

has exceeded its CQ allocation. The lack 

of such a mechanism, commonly called 

a post-delivery transfer mechanism, 

does not allow for maximum sustainable 

yield (MSY) and is therefore 

counterproductive to the MSA (16 

U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)). 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

lack of a post-delivery transfer 

mechanism to balance out a CQ account 

prevents achievement of MSY and 

therefore the Program is inconsistent 

with National Standard 1. Cooperatives 

are able to tailor their fishing operations 

to harvest their CQ allocation with a 

great deal of precision. Given that the 

current management system is 

consistent with National Standard 1, 

and the fact that the Program is likely 

to confer an increased likelihood that 

vessels can harvest a greater proportion 

of the TAC, it is reasonable to conclude 

that the Program, even without a postdelivery transfer mechanism, is 

consistent with National Standard 1. As 

noted in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, this precision is evident in other 

cooperative-based LAPPs in which 

participants in cooperatives have 

consistently demonstrated the ability to 

maintain catch within their allocation 

(e.g., BSAI crab rationalization 

program). Cooperative managers have 

demonstrated an ability to coordinate 

their operations to ensure that these CQ 

accounts are not exceeded. Furthermore, 

should a cooperative anticipate that 

additional CQ may be required, that 

cooperative can initiate an 

intercooperative transfer. NMFS made 

no changes to the regulations based on 

this comment. 

Comment 44: Eliminate the ‘‘openended’’ joint and several liability 

provision in § 679.91(h)(3)(xvi), or at the 

very least limit joint and several liability 

among cooperative members to 

circumstances directly related to 

cooperative participation. As written, 

the proposed rule states that cooperative 

members are responsible for ensuring 

that all members of the cooperative 

comply with all regulations. Insurance 

underwriters will no doubt balk at 

writing coverage that exposes them for 

actions taken by persons or companies 

other than those they insure, or they 

will charge exorbitant premiums for 

doing so. In the face of potentially 

limitless liability for the acts or 

omissions of other companies, industry 

members would be unable to participate 

in a cooperative. 

Response: As explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, joint and 

several liability is established to ensure 

that cooperatives and the members of 

the cooperative adhere to regulations 

necessary to manage the fishery. 

Regulations establishing joint and 

several liability for cooperative 

members have been explicit 

components of the last three LAPPs 

implemented by NMFS (i.e., AFA, BSAI 

Crab Rationalization Program, and 

Central GOA Rockfish Program). NMFS 

is not aware that these provisions have 

adversely affected the ability of industry 

participants to receive insurance or 

constrained the formation of 

cooperatives in these LAPPs, and does 

not expect such a result under the 

Program. The determination of joint and 

several liability for a specific violation 

would be determined on a case-by-case 

basis by the NOAA OLE in conjunction 

with NOAA General Counsel for 

Enforcement and Litigation (GCEL). 

NMFS does not intend to foreclose the 

ability of NOAA OLE/GCEL to pursue 

joint and several liability for a given 

action by predetermining those actions 

which could be subject to this 

provision. NMFS made no changes to 

the regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 45: Section 679.91(h)(3)(vii) 

notes that Amendment 80 vessels are 

limited to fishing CQ between January 

20 and December 31. Although this 

reflects current regulations, it would be 

more prudent to limit catch of CQ by the 

regulations that determine when 

trawling for a species is allowed. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

modified § 679.91(h)(3)(vii) to clarify 

that an Amendment 80 cooperative is 

prohibited from catching CQ during the 

season closure for trawl gear in the BSAI 

specified at § 679.23(c), unless 

regulations at § 679.23 applicable to an 

Amendment 80 species in the BSAI are 

more restrictive than those established 

in § 679.23(c), in which case the more 

restrictive regulations will apply. This 

modification would ensure that should 

trawl seasons for a given Amendment 80 

species be modified, those season dates 

would apply to Amendment 80 

cooperatives as well. 

Comment 46: Section 211 of the AFA 

requires the Council to mitigate the 

adverse effects caused by the AFA on 

non-AFA participants such as the 

Amendment 80 sector. Based on these 

criteria, the Council should have elected 

to revise AFA sideboards to reflect the 

post-AFA history of the pollock fleet 

rather than allow a substantial portion 

of the yellowfin sole ITAC to be 

allocated to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. 

Response: Section 211 of the AFA 

specifically instructs the Council to 

recommend ‘‘management measures as 

it deems necessary to protect other 

fisheries under its jurisdiction * * * 

from the adverse impacts caused by [the 

AFA] or fishery cooperatives in the 

directed pollock fishery.’’ The Program 

allocates ITAC of Amendment 80 

species. In all but a few limited cases 

(i.e., AFA sideboard limits for Aleutian 

Islands Pacific ocean perch and halibut 

PSC sideboard limits for the AFA 

catcher/processor sector), ITAC or PSC 

allocated to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is less than the AFA 

sideboard limits. Compared to the AFA 

sideboard limits in place prior to the 

implementation of the Program, the 

allocations of ITAC and PSC under the 

Program are more restrictive then the 

AFA sideboard limits. The Council did 

consider and recommend the 

management measures applicable to the 

AFA sector that it determined necessary 

to protect other fisheries during the 

development of the Program. NMFS did 

not modify the regulations based on this 

comment. 

Comment 47: The proposed rule 

appears to eliminate AFA sideboard 

limits for yellowfin sole, and otherwise 

modifies AFA sideboards. In accordance 

with the AFA, ensure that no rule is 

adopted that would have the effect of 

allowing AFA vessels to exceed in 

aggregate their traditional harvest levels 

in non-pollock fisheries. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the Program does modify existing AFA 

sideboard limits, and in some cases the 

new limits under the Program may be 

less than those currently established. 

However, NMFS notes that in the case 

of yellowfin sole, the AFA sideboard 

limit is relieved only when the 

yellowfin sole TAC is relatively high. As 

noted in response to comment 46, the 

ITAC allocated to the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery is more 

constraining on the fishing activities of 

the AFA fleet than the AFA sideboard 

limits as modified under the Program. 

The Program effectively constrains the 

AFA fleet overall to catch a smaller 

proportion of the overall TAC than 

possible under the AFA sideboard limits 

prior to modification by the Program in 

all but the limited case of yellowfin sole 

at relatively high ITAC levels. The effect 

of the Program on AFA sideboard limits 

is discussed extensively in the preamble 

to the proposed rule. NMFS made no 

changes to the regulations based on this 

comment. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52698 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 48: The Council’s 

recommendations for allocation of ITAC 

and crab and halibut PSC to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sectors are more 

than fair in accommodating access to 

fisheries by vessels that have not shown 

dependence on the fisheries. Requests 

by representatives of the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector for larger 

allocations of ITAC or crab or halibut 

PSC are unjustified and should be 

denied. 

Response: NMFS did not receive any 

requests to increase allocations of ITAC, 

crab PSC, or halibut PSC to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector during the 

public comment periods on Amendment 

80 and the proposed rule. NMFS 

approved the allocations recommended 

by the Council in Amendment 80 to the 

FMP, and this final rule implements 

those allocations. 

Section 679.92 

Comment 49: Section 679.92(a)(2) 

imposes a use cap of 30 percent on 

Amendment 80 QS holders. This 30 

percent QS use cap is arbitrary and 

capricious by virtue of the fact that it 

does not take into consideration the 

consolidation that has already occurred 

in the fishery over the past 18 years. 

This arbitrary limit also prevents a 

company that is limited by the cap from 

participating in the anticipated future 

consolidation of the sector that is 

expected to result from the cooperative 

program. Because there are currently 

only 13 companies and 25 actively 

fishing Amendment 80 vessels, this 

aspect of the proposed rule will limit 

the sales market. QS holders who wish 

to sell may not get the highest and best 

value from the sale, while the very 

companies who are likely to be in the 

best financial position to pay the best 

price will be prohibited from competing 

in the sale. 

Response: The 30 percent use cap was 

recommended by the Council after 

considering the catch patterns of 

participants in the Amendment 80 

sector and the potential for increased 

consolidation in the fishery (Section 

1.11.10 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA; see 

ADDRESSES). As with other LAPPs 

developed and recommended by the 

Council, the Program implements a 

limit on the amount of QS that any one 

entity may obtain and hold. MSA 

National Standard 4 specifically 

requires that when allocating fishing 

privileges among fishermen, that 

allocation shall ‘‘be carried out in such 

a manner that no particular individual, 

corporation, or other entity acquires an 

excessive share of such privileges’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1851(a)(4)). 

The QS use cap recommended by the 

Council would limit only a few entities, 

and more likely only one entity, to the 

amount of QS that it would receive in 

the initial allocation of QS. The Council 

recommended, and the Program 

provides at § 679.92(a)(2), that any 

person initially issued QS in excess of 

the 30 percent use cap would be 

allowed to continue to hold QS at that 

initial level. Participants can choose to 

participate in a cooperative with other 

members of the Amendment 80 sector 

and achieve efficiencies of scale that 

may result from such arrangements, or 

otherwise enter into business 

arrangements that improve the efficient 

use of fishery resources. The 30 percent 

QS use cap does not affect those 

arrangements, it merely restricts the 

consolidation of fishing privileges 

within one or a single entity consistent 

with MSA National Standard 4. NMFS 

determined that the Council’s 

recommendation is consistent with the 

MSA and other applicable law. NMFS 

made no changes to the regulations 

based on this comment. 

Comment 50: Industry representatives 

should have the ability to assign LLP 

licenses to an Amendment 80 vessel at 

the time of Amendment 80 QS 

application, rather than having the LLP 

originally assigned to the vessel 

automatically become an Amendment 

80 LLP license. This logic applies to 

Table 39 to part 679 which lists LLP 

licenses that must be used onboard 

Amendment 80 vessels that are 

designated as eligible to directed fish for 

flatfish in the GOA. The proposed rule 

as written results in a perverse situation 

where at least one otherwise qualified 

vessel cannot fish in the GOA flatfish 

fisheries because the vessel owner does 

not hold an LLP license specified under 

Table 39 to part 679. Change the 

regulation so that the Amendment 80 

QS holder can designate LLP licenses 

for an Amendment 80 vessel rather than 

specifying a list of predetermined LLP 

licenses, as presented in Table 39 to part 

679, that must be used. Make the 

following changes to the final rule: 

1. Revise § 679.92(c) to remove the 

reference to a specific LLP license 

defined in Column C of Table 39 to part 

679; 

2. Remove Column C in Table 39 to 

part 679 which lists specific LLP 

licenses that must be used while 

directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA; 

3. Add a new paragraph to 

§ 679.4(o)(1) which would define any 

LLP license assigned to any Amendment 

80 vessel at any time that the 

Amendment 80 vessel made a legal 

landing in the GOA as being an 

Amendment 80 LLP license for 

purposes of applying GOA sideboard 

restrictions under § 679.93(e)(3) and (4); 

and 

4. Add a new table to identify all 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses with GOA 

endorsements that are subject to 

sideboard restrictions under 

§ 679.93(e)(3) and (4). 

These changes are consistent with the 

arguments presented under the issue of 

defining what constitutes an 

Amendment 80 LLP in this vessel-based 

program. In one case, the F/V LEGACY 

is eligible to fish flatfish in the GOA 

under sideboard regulations at 

§ 679.92(c), and is one of the most GOA 

groundfish-dependent vessels in the 

Amendment 80 fleet. However, that 

vessel does not use an LLP license listed 

in Column C in Table 39 to part 679 and 

therefore would be ineligible to fish in 

the GOA using the LLP license currently 

designated for that vessel. By requiring 

that an Amendment 80 vessel use the 

LLP license originally assigned to it, this 

vessel could not fish in the Gulf because 

(1) the LLP is no longer assigned to the 

vessel, and (2) even if it was, that LLP 

is not endorsed for fishing in the GOA 

under existing LLP endorsement 

regulations at § 679.4(k). Clearly, this is 

not what the Council intended when 

requiring that vessels meet a 

participation threshold to continue to 

operate in the GOA. 

At the same time, the Council did 

intend to limit the ability for 

Amendment 80 vessel-associated LLPs 

to bring additional catcher/processor 

effort into the GOA. The Council’s 

motion for Amendment 80, in 

Component 12.4.6, states that 

‘‘sideboards apply to vessels (actual 

boats) and LLPs used to generate harvest 

shares that resulted in allocating a 

percentage of the Amendment 80 

species TACs to the [Amendment 80] 

sector. The intent is to prevent doubledipping with respect to GOA history 

related to sideboards.’’ No LLP license 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel 

during the qualifying period should be 

allowed to bring additional catcher/ 

processor effort into the GOA that is not 

subject to the Amendment 80 sector’s 

sideboard limits. In short, any LLP that 

was assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel during the qualifying period, and 

has a GOA endorsement should be 

subject, for catcher/processor 

operations, to the Amendment 80 

sector’s GOA sideboards regardless of 

whether it is designated as an 

Amendment 80 LLP. 

Response: NMFS agrees in part and 

has modified the regulations in response 

to recommended changes (1) and (2). 

NMFS revised § 679.92(c) to remove the 

reference to a specific LLP license 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52699 

defined in Column C of Table 39 to part 

679. NMFS removed Column C in Table 

39 to part 679 which lists specific LLP 

licenses that must be used while 

directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA. 

NMFS did not make recommended 

changes (3) and (4), given the changes 

made in response to this comment and 

in response to comment 1. 

After reviewing the final EA/RIR/ 

FRFA, Amendment 80, and Council 

records, NMFS agrees that specific LLP 

licenses do not need to be defined and 

required to be used by Amendment 80 

vessels eligible to fish for flatfish in the 

GOA. The Council intended to limit the 

Amendment 80 vessels that could be 

used to fish flatfish in the GOA. It is also 

apparent that the Council wished to 

minimize the risk that LLP licenses with 

trawl catcher/processor endorsements in 

the GOA and traditionally used on 

Amendment 80 vessels could be 

designated on non-Amendment 80 

vessels and increase the overall harvest 

rate in the GOA groundfish fisheries. 

However, it is not clear that the Council 

intended to require that a specific list of 

LLP licenses with specific catch history 

would be considered to be Amendment 

80 LLP licenses for purposes of applying 

sideboard limitations in the GOA. 

The commenter’s recommendation 

that NMFS define a list of LLP licenses 

subject to GOA sideboard limits does 

not appear to be necessary given the 

changes made in response to comment 

1. Specifically, the regulations require 

that each Amendment 80 vessel be 

designated on an LLP license, and 

define any LLP license that designates 

an Amendment 80 vessel as an 

Amendment 80 LLP license. Therefore, 

if an Amendment 80 vessel is qualified 

to fish in the GOA flatfish fisheries, it 

will be required to have an LLP license 

endorsed for activity in the GOA on the 

vessel, and that LLP license would 

automatically be defined as an 

Amendment 80 LLP license. NMFS 

anticipates that most of the Amendment 

80 vessels will continue to operate as 

catcher/processors in the GOA, and will 

need to be designated on an LLP license 

endorsed for trawl catcher/processor 

activity in the GOA. 

Given the limited number of LLP 

licenses with trawl catcher/processor 

endorsements for the GOA (22 

according to section 1.10.1 of the final 

EA/RIR; see ADDRESSES), it is highly 

likely that most, it not all, of the LLP 

licenses with trawl catcher/processor 

endorsements for the GOA will 

designate Amendment 80 vessels, be 

limited for use within the Amendment 

80 sector, and therefore, be subject to 

the sideboard measures applicable 

under § 679.92(b) and (c). 

Comment 51: All of the smaller 

vessels should have the benefit of the 

provisions provided to the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE, if they are fishing in the GOA. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

Council recommended and the rule 

implements regulations applicable to 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE based on a 

review of fishing activities of all 

Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA. The 

Council established criteria that would 

allow any vessel meeting specific 

participation criteria to be exempted 

from certain M&E and sideboard 

restrictions. As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, only the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE appears to meet those 

criteria (72 FR 30093). The Council did 

not recommend extending these 

measures to all Amendment 80 vessels, 

but only those with a clear and 

consistent dependence on GOA 

groundfish fisheries over a specific 

period of time. The criteria selected for 

granting the exemption to the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE were not intended to 

extend to all Amendment 80 vessels but 

only to those Amendment 80 vessels 

that meet the criteria. Only the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE met those criteria. 

NMFS did not modify the regulations 

based on this comment. 

Section 679.93 

Comment 52: Allow catcher/ 

processors to install two flow scales off 

existing conveyors, just forward of each 

fish bin to allow the flow of fish to move 

over the scales onto the sorters on both 

sides of the bins. This will remove 

potential constraints on production that 

one operational line may cause. The 

observer could monitor the flow of catch 

opposite from the side from where the 

observer samples through the 

installation of video monitoring 

equipment, giving the observer 100 

percent visual coverage of all fish prior 

to its entering onto the scales. Observer 

random samples could be taken from 

either conveyor. 

Response: NMFS agrees that two flow 

scales are acceptable under certain 

circumstances. Regulations at 

§ 679.93(c)(4) only require that a vessel 

not have more than one operational line 

for the passage of all unsorted catch 

between the scale used to weigh total 

catch and the single location where the 

observer collects samples and multiple 

scales may not be used simultaneously 

except when using the configuration 

described below. The vessel may divide 

those lines both upstream of the flow 

scale and downstream of the single 

location where the observer collects 

samples in order to increase processing 

capacity or flexibility. This requirement 

will only result in a production 

reducing constraint in the event that the 

speed with which fish could pass over 

the scale was a limiting factor. 

NMFS notes that a reduction in 

throughput resulting from the use of a 

single scale is highly unlikely in these 

fisheries. Given that NMFS-approved 

flow scales are capable of weighing 

catch at rates of 60–80 metric tons per 

hour, NMFS does not believe that such 

a bottleneck would be created. NMFS 

also notes that all the catcher/processors 

and motherships participating in the 

AFA pollock fishery are able to 

effectively pass fish across a single point 

despite the fact that factory throughput 

in these vessels is often considerably 

greater than the throughput of any of the 

catcher/processors regulated under the 

Program. 

Regulations at § 679.93(c)(4) do not 

limit the ability of a vessel to use 

multiple scales simultaneously, but only 

if each scale is used to weigh separate 

hauls and the live bin configuration 

keeps each haul flowing over the scale 

separately. If two hauls were kept 

separate and two scales were in use at 

the same time, by regulation, a separate 

observer and sample station that met the 

requirements described at § 679.28(d) 

would be required. Allowing a single 

observer to monitor both lines in 

conjunction with video monitoring is 

not feasible because hauls are stratified 

to an unknown extent inside the live 

bin, the samples taken from different 

flow scales also would not be 

representative of the catch for the entire 

haul, and the samples taken from the 

different sides would thus not be 

representative of the total catch. 

Comment 53: The commenter 

strenuously objects to the 

unprecedented data collection 

provisions to be imposed upon 

Amendment 80 Program participants in 

§ 679.94. 

Response: Mandatory economic data 

collection in federally regulated 

fisheries is not unprecedented. The 

BSAI Crab Rationalization Program 

included a significantly more detailed 

economic data collection program, and 

NMFS Southeast Region maintains 

mandatory economic data reporting 

requirements on several fisheries under 

its jurisdiction. 

Comment 54: First and foremost, 

much of the economic data 

contemplated by this provision is 

proprietary and confidential in nature. 

Companies can maintain their position 

in the groundfish fleet by actively 

guarding information about the 

corporation, its internal organization 

and its key personnel. In complying 

with Federal and state laws compelling 

submission of certain information, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52700 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

companies do so with the 

understanding that such information is 

treated confidentially by the agencies 

receiving it, and that it is not to be 

released to the public. 

Detailed information regarding a 

company’s revenues, costs, 

expenditures, and compensation 

practices is highly confidential and is 

arguably the most sensitive information 

a business maintains. In the hands of a 

company’s competitors, such 

information could be used to gain an 

unfair competitive advantage, and 

would be extremely detrimental to that 

company. 

Response: NMFS recognizes the 

sensitive nature of the required 

information. However, confidential and 

trade secret information is routinely 

collected by agencies of the Federal 

government under statutory authority. 

Such information is protected from 

disclosure under numerous statutes, 

regulations, and administrative rules 

and will not be released to a firm’s 

competitors or the public. Only 

individuals who have signed a 

nondisclosure agreement under the 

terms of NOAA Administrative Order 

216–100 and who require access to the 

data for official purposes associated 

with fishery management plan 

development will have access to the 

submitted data. 

Comment 55: As the D.C. Circuit 

Court noted in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. 

Food & Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 148 

(D.C. Cir. 2006), government agencies 

that require or request confidential 

commercial information from parties 

outside the government have an 

incentive to act as good stewards of that 

information, since disclosure could 

result in competitive harm to the 

submitter (449 F.3d at 148). However, 

there is no indication in the proposed 

rule that the confidential information 

collected would be protected from 

release to competitors under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

While the FOIA does contain a 

provision exempting ‘‘trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information 

obtained from a person and privileged 

or confidential,’’ the existence of such a 

provision does not ensure that such 

information will not be disclosed, nor 

does it guarantee that a company 

submitting the data will not be subject 

to costly and burdensome disputes over 

whether such information falls within 

the aforementioned exemption (See 5 

U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). 

Response: All public requests for 

statistics submitted pursuant to a 

requirement under the MSA will be 

processed consistent with Department 

of Commerce (DOC) FOIA regulations 

found at 15 CFR part 903, NAO 205–13, 

Department of Commerce 

Administrative Orders 205–12 and 205–

14, and 15 CFR part 4. In addition to the 

DOC guidance for FOIA requests, NMFS 

will comply with its NAO 216–100 

regulations at 50 CFR 600.405 

addressing the confidentiality of 

fisheries information, and § 402(b)(1) of 

the MSA. NAO 216–100 and regulations 

at 50 CFR 600.405 follow § 402(b)(1) of 

the MSA, which states that any 

information submitted to the Secretary 

in compliance with a requirement under 

the Act, is confidential and shall not be 

disclosed. Section 402(b)(1) of the MSA, 

in addition to FOIA Exemption 4 that 

was described by the commenter, deems 

information submitted under the 

Program to be confidential and not 

disclosable. Disclosure under a FOIA 

request would not be permitted under 

the MSA or NMFS guidance. NMFS 

officials are directed to deny FOIA 

requests for information considered 

confidential under § 402(b)(1) of the 

MSA. Thus, NMFS would consider at 

least two FOIA exemptions applicable 

to a request for economic information 

submitted to the Secretary under this 

Program. If a requestor is dissatisfied 

with NMFS’ denial of the FOIA request, 

they can appeal the determination to the 

DOC. If the DOC were to determine that 

the data were not confidential, it would 

provide notice to the submitter and an 

opportunity for the submitter to 

commence an action in United States 

District Court to stop disclosure. 

Comment 56: In a briefing paper 

entitled ‘‘Confidentiality and Data 

Quality Protocols for BSAI Crab 

Economic Data: A Discussion and 

Proposal,’’ authored by the Economics 

and Social Sciences Research Program 

at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

(Paper), confidentiality issues were 

addressed with respect to the collection 

of EDR data for participants in the Crab 

Rationalization Program, which has very 

similar requirements in terms of the 

nature and extent of data to be collected 

under the Program. The Paper outlines 

a number of existing statutory and 

regulatory protections that would apply 

to the type of data that are to be 

collected under the BSAI crab 

rationalization program, including 50 

CFR 600.405, which governs the 

agency’s access to confidential 

information; FOIA (in particular, the 

exemption from the FOIA for trade 

secrets); and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 

U.S.C. 1905. The Paper goes on to note 

that additional protocols may be 

developed specifically for the handling 

of confidential information submitted 

by Crab Rationalization Program 

participants after conducting hearings 

and soliciting input from industry, 

agency leadership, the Council and the 

public at large. 

NMFS should make a similar 

commitment to the protection of 

confidential information submitted 

under the Amendment 80 Program, to 

address the need for additional security 

protocols, and to conduct public 

hearings or invite comments on such 

measures. 

Response: Development of protocols 

for the prevention of statistical 

disclosure of individual submitters’

information is necessary in order to 

effectively implement nondisclosure 

policy under existing statutory, 

regulatory and administrative authority. 

To the extent that input from industry 

and the public is necessary to develop 

data handling protocols to effectively 

implement existing nondisclosure 

policies in the case of the economic data 

collection program, formal public input 

procedures will be followed. 

Comment 57: Even if there were some 

protection in place to prevent the 

agency’s release of proprietary financial 

data to competitors or others requesting 

it under the FOIA, the mere gathering 

and maintaining of such data poses risks 

in and of itself. While it is true that 

there are criminal and civil laws and 

rules in place to prevent security 

breaches by government employees and 

others with access to confidential data, 

nonetheless there have been a number 

of recent instances of personal and 

corporate data being lost or stolen from 

government agencies that were 

entrusted with its protection. A very 

real market exists for the sale of such 

information, and there are no foolproof 

methods for guarding against the loss or 

theft of data. The commenter is 

exceedingly concerned about the 

security of any confidential information 

it might be required to provide. 

Response: Amendment 80 EDR data 

will be housed on a secure server, 

encrypted, protected by firewall, 

password protected, and will be 

accessible by a small number of 

authorized individuals. The risk of 

accidental disclosure is minimal. 

Comment 58: The proposed rule lacks 

any scientific or other justification for 

the collection of these economic data. 

The MSA requires that fisheries 

management measures be based upon 

the best scientific information available 

(See 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)). There is no 

stated reason or justification for the 

gathering of this proprietary 

information. Indeed, it is difficult to 

imagine how such economic data about 

a company’s revenues and expenses 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52701 

would be relevant to the management of 

the fisheries at issue. 

Response: The final EA/RIR/FRFA 

prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES) 

discusses the need and justification for 

the ownership, employment, cost, and 

earnings data proposed for collection 

under the proposed rule. The analysis 

states that the program will collect cost, 

revenue, ownership, and employment 

data on a periodic basis. The purpose of 

the data collection is to fully understand 

the socioeconomic impacts of the 

action, to inform future management 

actions, and to assure that this action 

serves its intended purpose and meets 

the goals set forth in the problem 

statement. As the commenter notes, 

conservation and management measures 

shall be based upon the best available 

information available. The data 

collected through the EDR will provide 

the best available information on the 

specific costs and revenues from 

industry participants and will be 

considered in reviewing the effects of 

the Program. Data will be used by 

Council and agency staff, recognizing 

that confidentiality is of extreme 

importance. The ownership data will be 

collected by vessel for enforcement of 

the ownership cap regulations; 

ownership data collection is essential to 

ensure that ownership caps are not 

exceeded. Employment data will be 

collected for monitoring of the 

community impacts of this program. 

Because an objective of this Program 

is to offer sector participants the 

opportunity to mitigate, to some degree, 

the costs associated with bycatch 

reduction, revenue and cost data by 

vessel and sector are essential to 

identify/estimate the costs associated 

with bycatch reduction and estimate the 

revenues generated to the sector. 

Revenue, cost, and employment data 

will be used to monitor the program 

benefits to present generations of 

fishermen, associated fishing sectors, 

including the CDQ sector, communities, 

and the nation as a whole. 

Comment 59: The proposed data 

collection measures also raise questions 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). The procedural requirements of 

the PRA apply anytime an agency seeks 

to obtain or solicit facts or opinions 

from 10 or more persons (See 

Guidelines, Appendix 2.f). The 

preamble to the proposed rule indicates 

that the rule’s collection-of-information 

requirements make it subject to the PRA 

(72 FR 30111; May 30, 2007). As such, 

the agency is required to estimate the 

reporting burden imposed by the 

proposed data collection. In the case of 

the proposed rule, NMFS has estimated 

that preparation of the EDRs is 

estimated to average 7.5 hours for 

preparation of a report and 3 hours for 

verification of the data contained 

therein (72 FR 30112). 

Even assuming the Program 

participants already maintain the type 

of data sought by § 679.94, this estimate 

is very conservative, given the nature 

and extent of information required. 

Moreover, at least some if not many of 

the Program participants do not already 

maintain such data, which means that 

they will have to implement new 

accounting systems and other 

recordkeeping procedures to generate 

the data required. Creation of the 

required data from scratch in such 

instances will clearly take more than the 

7.5 hours estimated. The actual burden 

imposed by these data collection 

requirements is difficult if not 

impossible to estimate with any 

accuracy, but it is safe to say it will be 

an onerous task for companies in an 

already heavily regulated industry. 

Response: The information required 

in the proposed data collection is almost 

entirely either simple descriptive 

information about the vessel and 

equipment or standard cash flow 

information that data submitters already 

track for tax filing purposes. Other 

information included in the data 

collection, such as types of product 

produced, number of processing lines 

and throughput per hour, average fuel 

consumption per hour under different 

operating conditions, and number of 

days of fishing, processing, transiting/ 

offloading, and in shipyard in the 

Amendment 80 and other fisheries, may 

require additional monitoring. While it 

is not the purpose or mandate of the 

data collection to improve the business 

management of individual fishing 

operations in the Amendment 80 

fishery, it is likely that data submitters 

will find this information useful for 

purposes other than EDR filing. The 

principal data element that most data 

submitters are likely to find entirely 

novel and requiring new accounting and 

recordkeeping systems are the elements 

associated with reporting of transactions 

in QS shares. However, the novelty 

arises not from the economic data 

reporting requirement, but from the 

granting of tradeable assets which the 

QS represents. Transactions in these 

assets are reportable under federal tax 

filing requirements as well and as such 

the accounting and reporting burden is 

not attributable solely to the EDR 

requirement. 

Experience with the economic data 

collection under the Crab 

Rationalization Program suggests that 40 

hours represents an upper bound of the 

amount of time required to complete the 

Annual Catcher Processor EDR, which is 

40 pages long, compared to the nine 

pages of questions included in the draft 

Amendment 80 EDR. Assuming that 

similar accounting practices are 

followed in both the crab and 

groundfish fisheries, an upper bound 

estimate on the burden hours for the 

Amendment 80 EDR would be 

approximately 25 percent that of the 

crab Annual Catcher Processor EDR, or 

10 hours. The estimate of 7.5 hours 

represents an estimated average 

reporting burden, not an upper bound. 

Comment 60: Companies are 

concerned that inadvertent failures to 

disclose certain information—which is 

not unlikely given the scope of the 

information required—or 

miscalculations could be discovered in 

an audit, potentially subjecting them to 

civil or criminal penalties, even when 

the omission or error was merely an 

oversight. 

Response: While correct and verified 

information is always expected from 

those required to submit certain 

information, NMFS understands that 

whenever information is required, such 

submitted information may at times 

contain inadvertent errors. Prior to 

submission, there is no practical way for 

NMFS to anticipate every possible 

submission error, its significance and 

the proper corrective or deterrent 

response. However, NMFS Sustainable 

Fisheries, NMFS Alaska Fishery Science 

Center, NMFS OLE, and NOAA General 

Counsel have ample experience with 

data/information collection programs. 

That experience teaches that some 

errors will have little or no significance, 

some could have immediate and 

significant impact, some could be easily 

corrected, some may be correctable only 

at great cost and effort, some will be 

made by submitters who have no history 

of such errors, and some will be made 

by submitters who have made many 

prior errors. 

Although far from exhaustive, these 

are some of the types of considerations 

looked to by NMFS in determining the 

appropriate level of response to an error 

in required information submissions. 

Not every error requires submission to 

NMFS OLE for investigation and 

disposition. However, if an error is 

referred to NMFS OLE for investigation, 

it is also important to note that there is 

a wide variety of dispositions available 

to NMFS OLE to respond to an 

infraction. These include a ‘‘fix-it’’

citation, verbal warning, written 

warning, summary settlement offer, 

referral to NOAA General Counsel for 

civil penalties, or Department of Justice 

for criminal penalties. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52702 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 61: The proposed data 

collection program is in direct violation 

of the MSA. Section 1881a(a) of the 

MSA dealing with Council requests for 

information explicitly excludes 

‘‘information that would disclose 

proprietary or confidential commercial 

or financial information regarding 

fishing operations or fish processing 

operations’’ from the type of 

information that can be sought in an 

information collection program for a 

fishery (16 U.S.C. 1881a(a)). The 

statutory prohibition on the collection 

of exactly the type of information sought 

by the proposed rule could not be 

clearer. 

While other sections in the MSA 

provide the Council and NMFS with 

authority to gather certain information, 

detailed financial, cost or other data of 

the type sought by the proposed rule are 

not among the permissible categories of 

data that can be collected under those 

provisions (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(5)). 

The information sought to be 

collected by the proposed rule is 

unprecedented, with the exception of 

the data collection required of the crab 

fishery. However, it is critical to note 

that the only reason the Council and 

NMFS were able to impose such 

onerous data collection requirements on 

the crab fishery was because the MSA’s 

prohibition on the collection of 

proprietary and confidential data was 

waived by statutory amendment (See 

Pub. L. 108–199, Section 801(j)(2)). 

Without this waiver, the data collection 

program for the crab fishery would have 

been illegal. Absent a similar waiver for 

the EDR requirements of the proposed 

rule, Amendment 80’s data collection 

requirements are similarly illegal, not to 

mention costly and intrusive. 

Response: NMFS determined that the 

MSA in effect at the time the Council 

took final action on Amendment 80 

provided statutory authority under 

section 303(a)(5) to collect the 

information included in the EDR. Prior 

to the Council’s submission of 

Amendment 80 for Secretarial review, 

Congress amended the MSA to provide 

explicit authority to support the 

collection of economic data included in 

the Program. Among other amendments 

to the MSA, the MSRA amends section 

402 of the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1881a) by 

deleting the clause ‘‘(other than 

information that would disclose 

proprietary or confidential commercial 

or financial information regarding 

fishing operations or fish processing 

operations).’’ As such, Congress 

explicitly clarified the MSA authority to 

collect the type of financial and 

commercial information specified in the 

proposed rule, and renders the 

requirement for a specific statutory 

waiver unnecessary. Tables to Part 679. 

Comment 62: Table 31 to Part 679 

lists the 28 vessels that are to be 

considered Amendment 80 vessels and 

identifies the 28 LLP licenses that are to 

be considered Amendment 80 LLP 

licenses under the Program. Some 

participants in the Amendment 80 

sector would like to see Table 31 

modified to allow an Amendment 80 

LLP license to be assigned to any 

Amendment 80 listed vessel or to any 

other non-Amendment 80 vessel. 

Specifically, these members of the 

Amendment 80 sector contend that the 

F/Vs ARCTIC ROSE, PROSPERITY, and 

BERING ENTERPRISE, which are lost or 

permanently ineligible to fish, should be 

able to assign the QS derived from the 

legal landings of those vessels to the 

Amendment 80 LLP license originally 

assigned to those Amendment 80 

vessels and hold the resulting 

Amendment 80/LLP licenses. 

This change in the proposed 

regulation is not acceptable for the 

commenter. The commenter notes an 

inability to acquire additional QS 

permits as a result of the 30 percent QS 

use cap. As such, none of these 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses could 

be held by the commenter. The 

commenter states that the proposed rule 

as written accurately reflects the 

Council’s intent, and any proposed 

change to Table 31 would require 

further analysis, deliberation, and 

approval by the Council. 

Response: The commenter appears to 

argue two points. First, that the Council 

neither considered nor intended that 

LLP licenses originally issued to an 

Amendment 80 vessel could be used 

outside of the Amendment 80 sector. 

This argument is not supported based 

on comment and information provided 

by other comments, NMFS’ review of 

supporting documentation such as the 

final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this 

action, and Amendment 80 to the FMP 

(see ADDRESSES). This issue is 

specifically addressed in the response to 

comment 1. 

Second, the commenter appears to be 

arguing that because an individual is 

not able to hold additional QS due to 

the 30 percent use cap, and therefore 

cannot hold an additional Amendment 

80 QS/LLP license, the practice of 

assigning QS to an LLP license should 

not be permitted. This argument appears 

to be mere dissatisfaction about the 

inability of the commenter to increase 

QS holdings due to the limits of the QS 

use cap and need not be addressed 

further. It is not clear as to how the 

practice of transferring QS to an LLP 

license disadvantages any individual 

participant. In the unlikely and 

unfortunate event that a vessel owned 

by the commenter was lost, the 

commenter could transfer his QS 

assigned to that vessel to the LLP 

license originally assigned to that 

vessel, and realize the same benefits as 

the three vessel owners cited in the 

comment. NMFS made no changes to 

the regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 63: Table 33 to Part 679 sets 

forth the proposed allocations of 

Amendment 80 species between the 

Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. For 

management areas 541 and 542, the 

percentage of Atka mackerel assigned to 

the Amendment 80 sector decreases 

from 98 percent in 2008 to 90 percent 

in 2012 and all future years. 

At this time, all Atka mackerel is fully 

utilized by existing Amendment 80 

vessels. Any vessel wishing to 

participate in this fishery during the 

past 15 years has not been limited in 

any way from doing so. The proposed 

reduction in the percentage of ITAC 

allocated to the Amendment 80 sector is 

not warranted now or in the future. The 

proposed reduction cannot be justified 

and certainly is not in line with the 

MSA’s requirement that allocations be 

fair and equitable, calling into question 

the provision’s validity under National 

Standards 2 and 4. This provision 

appears to be a blatant fish grab from 

those who have historically harvested it. 

Response: NMFS has addressed this 

comment in its responses to comments 

18, 19, and 21. 

Comment 64: In Table 33 to Part 679, 

the rule proposed a decrease in the 

percentage of Pacific ocean perch 

apportioned to the Amendment 80 

sector for management areas 541 and 

542. In 2008 the percentage would be 

reduced to 95 percent, and in 2009 and 

all future years it would be further 

reduced to 90 percent. 

At this time, Pacific ocean perch is 

fully utilized by existing Amendment 80 

vessels. For the past 15 years there have 

been no barriers to participation in this 

fishery by non-Amendment 80 vessels. 

The proposed reduction is neither 

justified nor warranted, and is not in 

keeping with the MSA’s requirement 

that distributions be fair and equitable. 

If user groups exist in the BSAI trawl 

limited access section that warrant an 

allocation of Pacific ocean perch, they 

should be identified and a thorough and 

sound justification for such an 

allocation should be demonstrated in 

the regulatory analysis. Absent such 

evidence of the need for such an 

allocation, this provision appears to be 

nothing more than a blatant fish grab 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52703 

from those who have historically 

harvested it. 

Response: As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, the Council 

considered a range of options when 

allocating ITAC between the 

Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 

access sectors. Historic and recent catch 

patterns and opportunities for new 

entrants and fishery dependent 

communities were among the factors 

considered. Specifically, the Council 

considered future needs of fishing 

communities in the Aleutian Islands 

and the opportunity that allocating a 

portion of the ITAC for use in the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector could 

provide to smaller vessels operating out 

of these communities. The Council is 

not obligated to recommend, and NMFS 

is not obligated to make, allocations 

based solely on one criterion. 

As an example, National Standard 5 

requires that NMFS consider economic 

efficiency, ‘‘except that no measure 

shall have economic allocation as its 

sole purpose’’ (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(5)). 

National Standard 6 of the MSA 

requires that NMFS ‘‘take into account 

and allow for variations among, and 

contingencies in, fisheries, fishery 

resources, and catches’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(6)). National Standard 8 also 

requires that NMFS ‘‘provide for the 

sustained participation of such 

communities’’ (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8)(A)). 

NMFS did not modify the regulations 

based on this comment. 

Comment 65: Table 35 to Part 679 

establishes progressive reductions in the 

amount of halibut PSC apportioned to 

the Amendment 80 sector, beginning 

with an allocation of 2,525 mt in 2008 

and ending with an allocation of 2,325 

mt in 2012 and all future years. Such a 

reduction is unwarranted, and goes 

against the most fundamental principles 

of the MSA. 

The proposed reductions in PSC to 

the Amendment 80 sector will severely 

limit the ability of the Amendment 80 

QS holders to harvest the full BSAI 

flatfish TACs. At the present time, the 

largest unharvested biomass in the BSAI 

is the flatfish. This underutilization of 

the resource is caused by the limitations 

imposed by existing PSC allocations. 

The rule proposes to further reduce the 

allocations of PSC, which will further 

exacerbate the difficulties in 

maximizing the harvest of flatfish. 

There is no biological rationale for 

limiting the Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

allocation. The International Pacific 

Halibut Commission that establishes 

catch limits for halibut harvests has 

indicated that this reduction in bycatch 

will have no impact on the halibut 

biomass or the halibut harvesting sector. 

This same group has reported that there 

is an abundance of halibut in the BSAI, 

with BSAI halibut levels at an all-time 

high. Without any biological or other 

scientific justification for these 

reductions in halibut PSC, one has to 

wonder whether the proposed 

reductions are being sought purely for 

political reasons. The halibut and the 

flatfish harvested by the Amendment 80 

sector swim in and around the same 

area, making it almost impossible to 

avoid bycatch. The result of the 

reduction in halibut PSC will be to limit 

the targeted harvest of non-halibut 

species. The biomass of these nonhalibut species continues to grow, even 

to the extent that failure to harvest 

sufficient quantities could result in 

disruption of the food chain, alteration 

of established predator-prey 

relationships, and other negative 

biological consequences. It is therefore 

imperative not only for economic 

reasons but also for biological reasons 

that the harvest of flatfish by the 

Amendment 80 sector not be 

constrained by the proposed reductions 

in halibut PSC. 

Response: The Council considered a 

range of options to reduce bycatch 

under the Program. The apportionment 

of halibut PSC was considered during 

the development of the Program and, 

although modest, the Council did 

recommend, and the Program 

implements measures that will reduce 

bycatch of halibut. NMFS acknowledges 

that the reduction in the amount of 

halibut PSC apportioned to the 

Amendment 80 sector is limited. 

However, bycatch reduction measures 

need not bear a direct relationship 

between the measures taken and 

specific biological goals. 

National Standard 9 specifically states 

that ‘‘conservation and management 

measures shall, to the extent practicable, 

(A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the 

extent bycatch cannot be avoided, 

minimize the mortality of such bycatch’’

(16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)). Guidelines to 

implement National Standard 9 at 50 

CFR 600.350 include, among other 

things, a requirement that ‘‘[i]n the 

absence of quantitative estimates of the 

impacts of each alternative, Councils 

may use qualitative measures’’ when 

assessing the impacts of bycatch 

reduction measures. Additionally, 50 

CFR 600.350 states that ‘‘The Councils 

should adhere to the precautionary 

approach found in the Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for 

Responsible Fisheries (Article 6.5)’’

when faced with uncertainty concerning 

the effects of bycatch reduction 

measures. The Council considered 

quantitative data where available and 

applicable, and qualitative data when 

establishing the bycatch reduction 

measures implemented in this rule. 

Additionally, the Council applied a 

precautionary approach when 

implementing these bycatch reduction 

measures. 

NMFS agrees that ideally bycatch 

reduction measures would have a 

directly measurable impact on the stock 

abundance of a given bycatch species, 

but National Standard 9 specifically 

provides that NMFS should minimize 

bycatch and reduce the mortality of 

bycatch without specific reference to the 

amounts reduced or the effect on stock 

abundance. 

NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s argument that the amount 

of halibut PSC reduced will 

significantly curtail the ability of the 

Amendment 80 sector to harvest 

specific flatfish species due to a reduced 

amount of halibut PSC. First, general 

experience with cooperative-based 

LAPPs, such as the AFA and most 

recently in the catcher vessel sector of 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program, 

indicate that fleets can effectively adopt 

fishing strategies that reduce bycatch 

rates on certain species. Participants in 

the Amendment 80 sector noted this 

advantage during the development of 

the Program. As halibut bycatch rates 

are lowered, more halibut PSC is 

available for use when harvesting 

Amendment 80 species and other 

species such as arrowtooth flounder or 

Greenland turbot. 

NMFS also disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that reduction in 

the amount of halibut PSC will 

somehow prevent harvests of certain 

species that will have an adverse 

biological effect on BSAI fishery 

resources. Such an assertion is not 

supported by current biological 

information. The complex nature of 

ecosystem interactions in the BSAI do 

not support the assertion that due to a 

slightly reduced halibut PSC allocation 

to one group of fishermen, fewer flatfish 

species will be harvested, and 

ecosystem ‘‘food webs’’ will be 

disrupted to the overall detriment of the 

BSAI. The commenter does not provide 

any scientific information to support 

this contention. NMFS did not modify 

the regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 66: Table 35 to Part 679 

indicates that the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector will be allocated 875 mt of 

halibut PSC in the BSAI. This amount 

is higher than this sector has historically 

utilized. 

There is no justification in the 

Council motion or the amendment 

analysis for this increased halibut PSC 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52704 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

allocation to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. There is no apparent 

reason or plausible justification for 

ratcheting down the halibut PSC 

allocated to the Amendment 80 sector 

while at the same time increasing the 

halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector. The same 

principles used to justify the reduction 

in Amendment 80 halibut PSC should 

apply to the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector. 

In the preamble to the proposed rule, 

NMFS states that ‘‘fixing the AFA 

catcher/processor sideboard limits at a 

fixed amount based on the 2006 and 

2007 final harvest specifications would 

prevent AFA catcher/processors from 

being unduly constrained by halibut 

PSC sideboard limits’’ (72 FR 30071). 

The same holds true for the Amendment 

80 sector. NMFS’ creation or 

endorsement of different halibut PSC 

allocations for these two sectors smacks 

of preferential treatment for one sector 

at the expense of the other. 

Response: The preamble to the 

proposed rule notes that the allocation 

of halibut PSC to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is intended to 

accommodate future potential growth of 

harvests by that sector, especially if the 

proportion of the ITAC of yellowfin sole 

allocated to that sector increase. The 

commenter is correct that the amount of 

halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector is higher than the 

recent average use of halibut PSC by 

that sector. The preamble to the 

proposed rule, final EA/RIR/FRFA, and 

Council deliberations note that this 

increase is appropriate to accommodate 

future ITAC allocations to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector that may 

require additional halibut PSC to be 

fully harvested. 

Statements cited in the comment 

describing the AFA sideboard limit are 

taken out of context. The preamble to 

the proposed rule describes in detail the 

relationship between the AFA sideboard 

limits for halibut PSC and the total 

amount of halibut PSC that is assigned 

to the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

(72 FR 30071; May 30, 2007). Fixing the 

AFA sideboard limits allows AFA 

vessels to use a greater proportion of the 

875 mt of halibut PSC assigned to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector, but 

does not otherwise provide additional 

halibut PSC to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. NMFS did not modify the 

regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 67: The F/V ENTERPRISE is 

an Amendment 80 vessel that was not 

originally issued an LLP license in 2000 

based on the harvest activities of that 

vessel. This limits the ability of the 

owners of the F/V ENTERPRISE to 

transfer QS assigned to the vessel to an 

LLP license in the event of the actual 

total loss, constructive total loss, or 

permanent ineligibility of the F/V 

ENTERPRISE. The proposed rule 

provides a resolution to this situation by 

identifying the LLP license that has 

been used on the F/V ENTERPRISE 

since 2000 as the LLP license that is 

originally assigned to the F/V 

ENTERPRISE (LLG 4831). This LLP 

license is designated in Table 31 to Part 

679, but there is no further reference to 

the F/V ENTERPRISE in regulation. 

Insert a footnote in Table 31 to Part 679 

stating that LLG 4831 shall be treated as 

the LLP license originally assigned to 

the F/V ENTERPRISE, USCG 

Documentation Number 657383, for all 

relevant purposes of this part. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

added a footnote to Table 3 of Part 679 

to clarify that LLG 4831 is the LLP 

license originally assigned to the F/V 

ENTERPRISE, USCG Documentation 

Number 657383 for all relevant 

purposes of this part. 

General Program Comments 

Comment 68: The tools offered by the 

Program are vital to maintain economic 

viability. Thanks for the efforts to 

implement the Program effective for 

2008. The Program is essential for 

allowing participants to meet the GRS 

requirements that will be in effect as of 

January 20, 2008. 

Response: NMFS notes and 

appreciates the support. However, 

NMFS disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the Program is essential 

for allowing participants to meet the 

requirements of the GRS. NMFS notes 

that this rule meets four broad goals 

established by the Program: (1) 

Improving retention and utilization of 

fishery resources by the non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor fleet by extending the 

groundfish retention standard (GRS) to 

all non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

vessels; (2) allocating fishery resources 

among BSAI trawl harvesters in 

consideration of historic and present 

harvest patterns and future harvest 

needs; (3) establishing a LAPP for the 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processors and 

authorizing the allocation of groundfish 

species to harvesting cooperatives to 

encourage fishing practices with lower 

discard rates and to improve the 

opportunity for increasing the value of 

harvested species while lowering costs; 

and (4) limiting the ability of non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors to expand their 

harvesting capacity into other fisheries 

not managed under a LAPP. 

Comment 69: Delay implementation 

of the Program until 2009, at the 

earliest. It is unreasonable and 

unrealistic to expect the Program to be 

implemented for 2008. The problems 

similar to those encountered during the 

first year of implementation in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program are 

likely to occur if the Program is 

implemented by 2008. There is 

absolutely no compelling reason why 

implementation must occur by 2008. 

The rush to implementation is not in the 

best interests of the fishing community 

at large and reflects poorly on the 

motives of the Council. Assembling a 

workable cooperative that meets all the 

requirements set forth in the proposed 

rule is not a simple task. The guidelines 

governing the FMP and amendment 

process clearly state that successful 

implementation of new management 

and conservation measures requires 

adequate time for development and 

review. 

Response: NMFS does not see a need 

to delay Program implementation until 

2009. The Council recommended the 

Program in June 2006 with the clear 

expectation that the Program be 

implemented and effective for 2008. 

NMFS has regularly updated the 

Council and members of the industry 

about the proposed implementation of 

the Program and has consistently 

informed the public that if NMFS 

approves Amendment 80 to the FMP, it 

would be implemented for the 2008 

fishing year. The Council has 

encouraged NMFS to meet the proposed 

2008 implementation schedule. Most of 

the participants in the Amendment 80 

sector have encouraged NMFS to meet 

a 2008 implementation schedule. The 

benefits provided by the Program 

through LAPP management are the 

primary reasons for the strong support 

of the Program, and a 2008 

implementation is favored by most 

participants in the Amendment 80 

sector. 

The perceived difficulties in the first 

year of implementation in the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program are not 

necessarily applicable to this Program. 

These two LAPPs differ in their 

structure, official record data, and 

complexity. However, NMFS is aware of 

confusion that resulted during the 

implementation of the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program and is working to 

improve the implementation process for 

the Program. To aid fishery participants, 

NMFS anticipates holding public 

workshops with the Amendment 80 

sector to aid compliance after the 

publication of the final rule. Given the 

direction of the Council and the strong 

preference of most participants in the 

Amendment 80 sector to implement the 

Program by 2008, NMFS did not modify 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52705 

the effective date of the final rule based 

on this comment. 

Comment 70: The cooperative 

structure seems to be widely favored in 

many of the fisheries in Alaska. 

However, there appears to be no 

practical benefit to the public in 

requiring that cooperatives form. The 

halibut and sablefish IFQ fishery is not 

saddled with these requirements. The 

cooperative structure provides some 

relief for participants dealing with GRS 

compliance, but this should be an 

option, not a requirement. Alternatively, 

the required number of participants 

should be reduced. 

Response: The Council considered 

and rejected a range of options before 

ultimately selecting the alternative that 

has developed into the Program. The 

final EA/RIR/FRFA notes that 

cooperative management offers several 

distinct advantages over IFQs. 

Specifically, multispecies quotas for 

both target and bycatch species are 

difficult to manage when not managed 

on an aggregate basis. The likelihood 

that any person would exceed a given 

allocation is likely to increase under 

IFQ management. Managing and 

monitoring individual quota accounts is 

more costly and complex than 

cooperative-based allocations. NMFS 

also notes that another goal of the 

Program was to reduce bycatch, improve 

the retention of bycatch, and reduce the 

potential costs associated with bycatch 

reduction compliance. Applying the 

GRS on an aggregate basis to vessels in 

cooperatives meets that goal, whereas an 

IFQ program would not. 

The Council reviewed and rejected 

options that would have required fewer 

persons to reduce the number of persons 

required to form a cooperative. The 

Council recommended and the rule 

implements minimum standards for 

cooperative formation that were deemed 

to best meet the goals of encouraging 

cooperation and consolidation, 

minimizing costs, and providing 

adequate opportunity for individual 

participants to establish relationships 

with similarly situated harvesters. 

NMFS did not modify the regulations 

based on this comment. 

Comment 71: The Program has been 

before the Council for a long time, but 

the very short public comment period 

on the proposed rule was a serious 

handicap to fully responding to the very 

detailed and lengthy regulations. 

Response: NMFS determined that a 

30-day public comment period on the 

proposed rule was legally sufficient 

under the MSA and the Administrative 

Procedure Act. Section 304(b)(1)(A) of 

the MSA requires a public comment 

period of 15 to 60 days on proposed 

regulations. A 30-day public comment 

period on the proposed rule was 

consistent with this requirement of the 

MSA. NMFS also determined that the 

Amendment 80 sector was capable of 

providing meaningful comment on the 

proposed rule within a 30-day public 

comment period. The Amendment 80 

sector was actively involved in the 

development of Amendment 80 and was 

well aware of the regulatory 

components that would be necessary to 

implement Amendment 80. The 

proposed rule, while lengthy, was 

written in a manner to facilitate public 

review, including a table of contents for 

the preamble and clear examples of 

management provisions under 

Amendment 80. NMFS also held two 

public workshops, one on May 23, 2007 

(72 FR 27798), and one on June 18, 2007 

(72 FR 31548), to facilitate the public’s 

understanding of specific proposed 

regulatory components. Both workshops 

were attended by numerous participants 

in the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 

limited access sectors. Finally, several 

representatives from the directly 

regulated industry (i.e., the Amendment 

80 sector) requested a shorter public 

comment period to ensure that a 

decision on Amendment 80 and 

implementation of a final rule if 

Amendment 80 was approved could be 

effective in time for fishing to begin 

under Amendment 80 by 2008. 

Comment 72: Prohibit Amendment 80 

vessels from processing fish in nonLAPP fisheries to protect nonAmendment 80 processors from the 

potential rush of Amendment 80 vessels 

entering into fisheries such as salmon 

and herring and offering processing 

services that directly compete with 

existing processors. The advantage of 

the revenue that participants in the 

Amendment 80 sector receive from their 

ability to form cooperatives will 

increase the competition and reduce 

economic incentives for other 

processors. Amendment 80 sector 

participants could choose not to fish in 

the summer and use their vessels as 

processing platforms to compete with 

existing salmon processors. 

Response: Neither the CRP nor the 

Program provide NMFS with the 

specific regulatory authority to limit the 

ability of a specific vessel to be used in 

processing activities for specific 

fisheries such as salmon and herring. 

Regulations for salmon and herring 

processing within State waters could be 

established by the State of Alaska. 

NMFS does not have the authority to 

specifically prohibit fishing for species 

such as salmon or herring that are 

exclusively harvested within the waters 

of the State of Alaska. 

The potential that Amendment 80 

vessels could be used as processing 

platforms for salmon and herring was 

not explicitly addressed in the draft EA/ 

RIR/IRFA for the proposed rule. NMFS 

has revised section 1.10.2 of the final 

EA/RIR/FRFA to include a description 

of the existing and potential effects of 

the Program on existing processing 

operations, specifically salmon and 

herring processing operations. Based on 

the information available to NMFS, it 

does not appear that Amendment 80 

vessels currently process salmon and 

herring. It is not clear that Amendment 

80 vessels would choose to do so given 

the costs required to refit vessels, 

coordinate fishing operations, and 

establish new markets. 

Comment 73: Section 4.1.1 of the draft 

EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the proposed 

rule indicates that yellowfin sole could 

be reallocated from the Amendment 80 

sector to the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector. This provision was considered 

and rejected by the Council. Remove 

this reference from the final EA/RIR/ 

FRFA prepared for the final rule. 

Response: NMFS agrees. This 

reference is an error and has been 

removed from section 4.1.1 in the final 

EA/RIR/FRFA. 

Comment 74: NMFS indicates that it 

is maintaining the current Steller sea 

lion protection measures with the 

implementation of Amendment 80, 

including the management of the 

harvest limit area (HLA) for the Atka 

mackerel fishery. This includes 

maintaining the ‘‘platoon system’’ to 

subdivide fishing within Steller sea lion 

critical habitat in Atka mackerel 

management areas 542 and 543. NMFS 

should consider implementing existing 

Steller sea lion protection measures in 

a manner that would assign separate 

HLA harvest limits for Amendment 80 

cooperatives and the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. Under such an 

arrangement, the total limit on the 

amount of Atka mackerel that may be 

taken within the HLA is maintained, but 

cooperative participants would not be 

forced to race to harvest fish within the 

HLA. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that NMFS did not propose regulations 

that would have modified existing 

regulations concerning management of 

Atka mackerel in the HLA as part of the 

Program. NMFS will manage the HLA 

fisheries in compliance with existing 

regulations. Those regulations are found 

primarily at § 679.20(a)(8)(iii) and 

§ 679.22(a)(8)(iv). In response to this 

comment, NMFS is providing the 

following explanation of how it will 

apply the existing HLA management 

program in the context of the Program. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52706 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Atka mackerel are apportioned into 

three TACs, the Western AI District 

(Area 543), Central AI District (Area 

542) and Eastern AI District (Area 541)/ 

BS. A portion of each TAC is allocated 

to the CDQ Program and an ICA. In the 

case of Area 541/BS, an allocation of 

TAC is made to jig gear. In each of the 

three areas the remaining ITAC is 

apportioned into two seasonal 

apportionments; 50 percent of the ITAC 

is assigned to the A season, and 50 

percent of the ITAC is assigned to the 

B season. This allocation process is 

described in detail in the preamble to 

the proposed rule. 

In addition, no more than 60 percent 

of each seasonal allocation of ITAC may 

be taken inside the HLA of Areas 542 

and 543. With the implementation of 

the Program, each of the three fishery 

categories will receive a specific 

allocation of TAC (after subtraction of 

the CDQ, ICA, and jig apportionments) 

in the three Atka mackerel management 

areas. 

To participate in the A and/or B 

season fisheries for Atka mackerel in the 

HLA in either Areas 542 or 543, vessels 

are required to register with NMFS. 

NMFS randomly assigns vessels through 

a lottery to one of two HLA fisheries. 

HLA fisheries are designed to distribute 

Atka mackerel catch over a broader area 

and time. 

Each year, NMFS will establish HLA 

limits in the annual specification 

process. Under this description, NMFS 

is assuming that Amendment 80 

cooperatives and an Amendment 80 

limited access fishery will be 

established to fully illustrate the 

management of the HLA limit. 

Additionally, NMFS notes that there is 

no allocation of Atka mackerel in Area 

543 to the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector, therefore an HLA limit is not 

established for the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector in that area. In summary, 

these HLA limits will be managed as 

follows: 

5. NMFS will establish HLA limits for 

each of the three fishery categories: The 

BSAI trawl limited access sector; the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery; 

and an aggregate HLA limit applicable 

to all Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

6. NMFS will assign vessels in each 

of those three fishery categories that 

apply to fish for Atka mackerel in the 

HLA to an HLA fishery based on a 

random lottery of the vessels that apply. 

Vessels in each fishery category will 

then be assigned to either the first or 

second HLA fishery in Area 542 or Area 

543 according to the regulations. Vessels 

in the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

will be assigned a single HLA fishery 

that may operate only in Area 542. The 

Amendment 80 cooperative and limited 

access fishery categories will be 

assigned to one of two initial HLA 

fisheries in either Area 542 or 543. For 

the Amendment 80 cooperative and 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

categories, the first HLA fishery will 

begin fishing in either Area 542 or Area 

543, and the second HLA fishery will 

fish in the management area not fished 

by the first platoon. After a specified 

amount of time, the vessels assigned to 

an HLA fishery for a fishery category 

will switch areas and begin fishing in 

the second HLA fishery. 

7. A maximum of two HLA fisheries 

will be established in Area 542 for the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector; A 

maximum of four HLA fisheries will be 

established for vessels assigned to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, a first and 

second HLA fishery in Area 542, and a 

first and second HLA fishery in Area 

543; and a maximum of four HLA 

fisheries will be established for vessels 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery, a first and second HLA 

fishery in Area 542, and a first and 

second HLA fishery in Area 543. 

8. NMFS will initially open fishing in 

the HLA for the first HLA fishery in all 

three fishery categories at the same time. 

The initial opening of fishing in the 

HLA will be based on the first directed 

fishing closure of Atka mackerel in Area 

541/BS for any one of the three fishery 

categories allocated Atka mackerel 

ITAC. The first closure of Atka mackerel 

in Area 541/BS would likely be for the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector given 

the relatively small amount of ITAC 

assigned to that fishery category. 

9. The amount of time that each HLA 

fishery in each fishery category may fish 

in the HLA will be based on the amount 

of harvest effort of the vessels in that 

HLA fishery and the amount of the HLA 

limit available to that fishery category. 

Existing regulations at § 679.20(a)(8)(iii) 

limit any HLA fishery to a period of 

fishing in the HLA not greater than 14 

days, therefore no HLA fishery in any 

fishery category could be open more 

than 14 days. 

10. Once an HLA fishery for a fishery 

category is closed, the vessels in that 

HLA fishery may transit to the 

management area in which they have 

not been fishing. Vessels in the BSAI 

trawl limited access HLA fishery do not 

need to transit because those vessels are 

limited to fishing only in Area 542. 

NMFS will provide a limited amount of 

time for vessels in the Amendment 80 

cooperative and limited access HLA 

fisheries to transit between management 

areas. 

11. NMFS will open the second HLA 

fishery for each fishery category 

consistent with the closure of the first 

HLA fisheries. Some fishery categories 

may complete fishing in the HLA before 

other fishery categories depending on 

the amount of ITAC and the harvest rate 

within the platoons in that fishery 

category. 

12. According to existing regulations 

at § 679.20(a)(8)(iii)(F), vessels 

registered for an HLA fishery are 

prohibited from participating in any 

groundfish directed fishery, other than 

Atka mackerel, during the opening of 

the first HLA directed fishery assigned 

to the vessel in a season. 

13. According to existing regulations 

at § 679.22(a)(8)(iv), no vessel may use 

trawl gear to directed fish for Pacific cod 

in Areas 542 or 543 while vessels are 

directed fishing in the HLA. At any time 

an HLA fishery is open to fishing for 

any platoon in any fishery category, 

trawling for Pacific cod in Areas 542 

and 543 is prohibited. Once all fishery 

categories have completed fishing in the 

HLA, or the maximum time for an HLA 

fishery has been met, NMFS will close 

all HLA fishing. At that point, vessels 

may use trawl gear to directed fish for 

Pacific cod in Areas 542 and 543. 

The following section provides the 

rationale for integrating the Program and 

HLA management as summarized. As 

noted in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, NMFS will specify the amount of 

ITAC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector; the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery; and an aggregate 

ITAC applicable to all Amendment 80 

cooperatives in the annual harvest 

specifications. This amount of ITAC 

assigned to each of these three fishery 

categories will be subject to the HLA 

limits. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(8) 

describe the mechanisms for 

establishing HLA limits and HLA 

fisheries. These regulations do not 

preclude NMFS from assigning HLA 

limits to fishery categories that are 

established in the annual harvest 

specifications. Because each fishery 

category will be assigned its own HLA 

limit, each fishery category will have its 

own HLA fisheries. 

This structure will facilitate 

management of the HLA by ensuring 

that vessels in each fishery category will 

be limited in the HLA based on the 

proportion of the ITAC assigned to that 

fishery category. Assigning an HLA 

limit in the aggregate for all fishery 

categories could encourage vessels in 

the HLA fisheries to compete with one 

another for this limit and thereby create 

incentives for vessels to rapidly harvest 

the HLA. A highly competitive fishery 

in the HLA would result in NMFS 

restricting the amount of time allowed 

for fishing. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52707 

Regulations at § 679.20(a)(8)(iii)(C) 

state ‘‘48 hours after prohibiting 

directed fishing for Atka mackerel in 

area 541, the Regional Administrator 

will allow directed fishing within the 

HLA in areas 542 and 543.’’ The current 

regulations do not address management 

of the Area 541/BS seasonal fishery for 

the three fishery category allocations 

and the implication of the management 

of these three fishery categories for the 

initiation of the HLA fisheries. The 

regulations do not explicitly state that 

closures of Atka mackerel for all three 

fishery categories in Area 541/BS is 

required to initiate the HLA fisheries. 

The directed fishery for Atka 

mackerel assigned to the cooperatives as 

CQ will be managed by each 

cooperative. NMFS does not anticipate 

closing cooperatives from fishing. 

Expected dates for closing the directed 

fishery by the Amendment 80 limited 

access sector will depend on the amount 

allocated, number of vessels 

participating, the harvest rates of those 

vessels, and the fishing plans of those 

vessels. NMFS will directly manage the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

through inseason management action. 

However, the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery participants may choose 

not to fish the Area 541/BS allocation 

and never trigger a closure, or may delay 

fishing and therefore closure of the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery in 

Area 541/BS may not occur until late in 

the Atka mackerel A or B season. The 

BSAI trawl limited access sector is 

expected to have the smallest allocation 

of the three fishery categories. In 2008, 

its allocation under this rule will be two 

percent of the Area 541/BS TAC, after 

deduction for the CDQ allocation, and 

projected jig gear and ICA deductions. 

Using the current 2008 Area 541/BS 

TAC of 17,600 mt, NMFS calculates the 

allocation for the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector allocation to be 143 mt for 

each season. Since 2003, vessels in the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector have 

not participated in a directed Atka 

mackerel fishery in Area 541/BS. The 

Regional Administrator may prohibit 

directed fishing for Area 541/BS Atka 

mackerel by the trawl limited access 

sector at the beginning of the trawl 

season (January 20) since the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector allocation is 

expected to be small relative to the 

amount of potential fishing effort in this 

fishery. 

For simplicity, NMFS will base the 

initiation of the HLA fisheries on the 

first closure of any of one of the three 

fishery categories allocated seasonal 

Atka mackerel TAC in Area 541/BS. 

Clearly defined dates for the initiation 

of the HLA fisheries is important for the 

efficient operation of the participating 

vessels. As explained above, the first 

closure would likely be for the BSAI 

trawl limited access fishery. 

Regulations at § 679.20(a)(8) 

governing the management of the lottery 

for participation in the HLA fishery 

state, ‘‘[t]he Regional Administrator 

* * * will randomly assign each vessel 

to one of two directed fisheries for each 

statistical area in which the vessel is 

registered.’’ Similar to the described 

case of managing the initiation of the 

HLA fisheries, regulations governing the 

creation of the HLA platoons envision 

one HLA limit to be managed among 

two platoons in each of the two areas in 

each season. However, the regulations 

allow NMFS to apportion the ITAC 

among fishery categories by season with 

the attendant HLA limit applied to each 

seasonal apportionment. 

A single lottery in which all three 

fishery categories are combined in a 

single HLA fishery would not be an 

effective implementation of the existing 

HLA regulations. Each HLA fishery in 

each fishery category is likely to require 

varying amounts of time to efficiently 

attain the HLA limits associated with 

their seasonal TAC allocations. Vessels 

associated with a fishery with limited 

time requirements (e.g., the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery) would be 

restricted from participating in other 

groundfish fisheries until the first HLA 

fisheries for all sectors ended. For 

vessel’s in the cooperative sector’s HLA, 

catch will be limited by their own 

activity under the regulations, not by 

active NMFS management. Vessels in 

those fisheries may be unnecessarily 

restricted to short time requirements 

under a single lottery for all HLA fishery 

participants. Constructing separate 

lotteries and therefore separate HLA 

fisheries for each of the fishery 

categories allows efficient conduct of 

the fishery and distributes catch across 

time within the HLA. 

Comment 75: Revise the Amendment 

80 rule to divide the HLA harvesting 

between cooperative and limited access 

sectors. The HLA fishery is limited to a 

maximum of 14 days. This prevents the 

cooperatives from spreading Atka 

mackerel harvest over a longer time 

period with a smaller fleet without 

losing harvesting potential in the HLA. 

Dividing the HLA harvesting between 

cooperative and limited access sectors 

would prevent the use of a smaller 

number of vessels with a lower catch 

per day within the HLA and would 

allow the cooperative to harvest its 

allocation within the HLA without 

engaging in a race for fish with the 

limited access sector. NMFS may adjust 

the duration of the HLA fishery for each 

sector based on vessel capacity to 

harvest the Atka mackerel. 

Response: The portion of this 

comment addressing the management of 

HLA fishing by fishery categories is 

addressed in the response to comment 

74. The 14-day limit for an HLA fishery 

was established to limit the duration of 

HLA fishing and provide for a datecertain opening of Areas 542 and 543 to 

Pacific cod trawl fishing. In the recent 

past, the Atka mackerel HLA fisheries 

have closed well before the 14-day 

maximum time limit. This rule provides 

an opportunity for vessels in platoons to 

coordinate their fishing operations 

within their fishery category and harvest 

their allocation more slowly compared 

to current HLA fishing patterns. Until it 

is determined that the 14-day time limit 

on the HLA fishery is not needed, this 

aspect of the regulations will remain 

unchanged. 

Comment 76: NMFS should consider 

providing for a Pacific cod trawl fishery 

in the HLA concurrent with the Atka 

mackerel HLA fishery. The Pacific cod 

trawl fishery could occur during a 

window in which either the 

Amendment 80 cooperative or limited 

access fishery HLA fisheries are closed. 

Alternatively, the Pacific cod fishery in 

the HLA in Areas 542 and 543 could 

occur concurrent with the Atka 

mackerel HLA fisheries if the daily 

catch rates are sufficiently low as to not 

be likely to adversely affect the ability 

of Steller sea lions to forage. 

Response: NMFS notes that 

concurrent directed fishing using trawl 

gear for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod 

in the HLA in Areas 542 and 543 is 

prohibited by existing regulations at 

§ 679.22(a)(8)(iv). The proposed rule 

notes that no changes in regulations for 

Steller sea lion protection were 

proposed. Allowing for the concurrent 

removal of two important prey species 

for Steller sea lions within critical 

habitat was not addressed in the 

proposed rule, and was not specifically 

analyzed in the final EA/RIR/FRFA 

developed for this action. The suggested 

changes may have an affect on the prey 

availability for Steller sea lions and 

would require Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 consultation before further 

consideration. The approach to HLA 

management under the Program as 

described in response to comment 74 

maintains existing regulations for Steller 

sea lion protection so that no effects on 

Steller sea lions beyond those already 

analyzed in previous consultations are 

likely to occur. NMFS did not modify 

the regulations based on this comment. 

Comment 77: If the change in 

regulations recommended in comment 5 

is adopted, then Section 3.3.1.1 of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52708 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

FMP as modified by Amendment 80 

should be corrected to strike the 

reference to an LLP license that ‘‘was 

originally assigned to’’ an Amendment 

80 vessel and revise this section to state 

that ‘‘A license that designates a nonAFA trawl catcher/processor may only 

be used on a non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor.’’ This change in the FMP 

would be consistent with the intent of 

this provision and is consistent with the 

change recommended under response to 

comment 5. 

Response: The change in regulation in 

response to comment 5 does not require 

a revision to the FMP text. The FMP text 

provides a broad description of the 

limitations on the use of an LLP license 

that is ‘‘originally assigned to’’ an 

Amendment 80 vessel. The regulations 

at § 679.2 and at § 679.7(o) define an 

LLP license that is ‘‘originally assigned 

to’’ an Amendment 80 vessel and the 

criteria that must be met so that an LLP 

license that is originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 LLP license is limited 

for use within the Amendment 80 

sector. The regulations as amended are 

not inconsistent with the FMP text and 

merely clarify the definition and 

application of this FMP text. The 

Secretary did not disapprove this 

portion of the FMP text. 

Comment 78: The preamble to the 

proposed rule states that Pacific cod 

could be reallocated to the Amendment 

80 sector, but could not be reallocated 

from the Amendment 80 sector to other 

sectors. Correct the typographical error 

in Table 9 of the preamble to the 

proposed rule which indicates that 

Pacific cod can be reallocated from the 

Amendment 80 sector. 

Response: NMFS agrees that Table 9 

in the preamble text to the proposed 

rule is in error and inconsistent with the 

description in the remaining portions of 

the preamble and the proposed 

regulatory text. However, because the 

error is in the preamble text and not the 

regulatory text, no change is required in 

the regulatory text. 

Comment 79: NMFS should review 

the cost/benefit and practicability 

language contained in National 

Standard 9, and consider the definition 

of ‘‘practicability’’ offered by 

Representative Don Young in the 

Congressional Record (House) from 

September 27, 1996: ‘‘ ‘Practicable’

requires an analysis of the cost of 

imposing a management action; the 

Congress does not intend that this 

provision will be used to allocate among 

fishing gear groups, nor to impose costs 

on fishermen and processors that cannot 

reasonably be met.’’

Response: NMFS has reviewed the 

costs of imposing the Program in the 

final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this 

action (see ADDRESSES). Section 4.1 of 

the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this 

action describes the effect of the 

Program toward meeting the goals of 

National Standard 9. This analysis 

details the significant economic benefits 

likely to be received by participants in 

the Program through LAPP 

management, the additional costs of 

M&E requirements, and the potential 

economic effects of the allocations 

considered and ultimately 

recommended by the Council in the 

development of the Program. The 

bycatch reduction measures 

implemented by the Program do not 

serve to allocate fishery resources 

among fishing gear groups. Bycatch 

reduction measures are not expected to 

adversely affect the ability of the 

Amendment 80 sector to effectively and 

fully harvest the fishery resources it has 

been assigned under the Program, 

particularly given the ability of 

participants in the Amendment 80 

sector to form cooperative arrangements 

with other fishery participants and 

reduce bycatch rates using improved 

fishing techniques. 

The regulations implementing the 

Program do not result in costs that 

cannot be reasonably met by the 

Amendment 80 sector. These costs are 

extensively analyzed in the final EA/ 

RIR/FRFA prepared for this action. 

NMFS notes that many of the 

compliance measures, and the costs 

associated with those measures, are 

required for compliance with other 

programs such as Amendment 79 to the 

FMP (71 FR 17362; April 6, 2006) and 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program (71 

FR 67210; November 20, 2006). The 

Amendment 80 vessels subject to the 

provisions of those regulations may 

have already borne many of the costs 

anticipated under this Program. NMFS 

did not modify the regulations based on 

this comment. 

Comment 80: National Standard 6 

requires FMPs to ‘‘take into account and 

allow for variations among, and 

contingencies in, fisheries, fishery 

resources, and catches’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(6)). NMFS has not seriously 

considered and allowed the variations 

in the methods and means of the 

participants. National Standard 7 

requires FMPs to ‘‘where practicable, 

minimize costs’’ (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(7)). 

There has been little or no consideration 

of the alternatives, nor any weighing of 

the benefits against the expense. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act requires more 

analysis by the agency. 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

the Program and this final rule are 

consistent with National Standards 6 

and 7. The final EA/RIR/FRFA contains 

an extensive discussion of the 

alternatives considered, the nature of 

the fisheries, the operations of the fleet, 

and the catch patterns of various 

participants. 

The Council chose to recommend, 

and the rule implements measures that 

address specific variations among the 

Amendment 80 sector that address 

National Standard 6. Some examples of 

measures to address variations and 

contingencies in fishery resources and 

catch patterns include allocating QS 

based on the best five of seven years of 

catch history from 1998 through 2004, 

applying GOA sideboard limits to 

vessels to accommodate variations in 

catch patterns of Amendment 80 sector 

participants, and assigning a minimum 

amount of QS to eligible Amendment 80 

sector participants who would not 

otherwise receive QS. The final EA/RIR/ 

FRFA and Council deliberations provide 

additional detail on the application of 

National Standard 6. 

The Council chose to recommend, 

and the rule implements measures that 

minimize costs and avoid unnecessary 

duplication where practicable, 

consistent with National Standard 7. As 

an example, M&E measures applicable 

to this Program mirror those required in 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program to 

reduce compliance costs and minimize 

duplication of regulations. The final EA/ 

RIR/FRFA and Council deliberations 

provide additional detail on the 

application of National Standard 7. 

The IRFA and FRFA prepared for the 

proposed rule and final rule 

respectively address those issues 

required to be examined by the RFA. 

The RFA requires the agency to conduct 

an analysis to determine the potential 

effects of the Program on directly 

regulated entities. The costs that are 

likely to accrue under the Program are 

described in the IRFA, FRFA, and 

associated RIR and the rationale for the 

costs imposed by the Program are 

described in those analyses. 

Comment 81: National Standard 8 

requires that FMPs consider the effects 

of management measures on fishing 

communities. As a member of one such 

fishing community, there is little 

evidence of consideration having been 

given to minimize the adverse economic 

impacts that will surely follow the rule. 

Conservation has little, if anything, to 

do with many of these changes, yet the 

avoidance of economic harm has been 

given little attention. The cumulative 

effect of these changes is to drive the 

smaller operators out of business and 

consolidate the fleet. 

Response: NMFS determined that 

Amendment 80 and this rule are 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52709 

consistent with National Standard 8. 

The final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for 

this action describes the importance of 

fishery resources to fishing 

communities. Responses to comments 

33 and 64 provide additional 

clarification on how the Council and 

NMFS took into account the importance 

of fishery resources to communities, 

provided for the sustained participation 

of those communities, and to the extent 

practicable minimized adverse 

economic impacts on those 

communities. As an example, the 

Council reviewed participation patterns 

of harvesters and processors for various 

communities, ensured that participation 

could continue, and provided harvest 

opportunities to specific communities, 

such as Adak, Alaska, that would 

facilitate that participation and to the 

extent practicable minimize possible 

adverse economic impacts of the 

Program on the sustained participation 

of these communities. The rule does not 

restrict the continued participation of 

fishing communities even if limits are 

placed on specific members of those 

communities. 

NMFS disagrees that conservation of 

fishery resources is not addressed by 

this rule. The Program this rule 

implements accomplishes a range of 

objectives such as extending GRS to all 

Amendment 80 vessels, ensuring more 

efficient harvests such as through LAPP 

management, and reducing bycatch, all 

of which are intended to directly 

provide conservation benefits. 

NMFS also disagrees that the 

potential economic impacts, and 

consideration of measures that may 

minimize adverse economic impacts to 

the extent practicable has not been 

addressed. The final EA/RIR/FRFA 

considers the economic effects of the 

Program in detail. The allocation of 

fishery resources, efforts to reduce costs 

associated with M&E compliance, and 

mechanisms to encourage more 

economically efficient fishery 

operations have been extensively 

analyzed, considered, and where 

practicable incorporated into this rule. 

Comment 82: Trawlers must be totally 

banned from all use. It is clear that 

overfishing allowed in this area is 

killing and stressing the marine 

mammals that need fish to stay alive in 

these waters. Cut all TACs by 50 percent 

this year and 10 percent each year 

thereafter. NMFS is doing a lousy job of 

protecting all marine life, has presided 

over the raping of the seas for 

commercial fish profiteering, and has 

failed to enforce the laws passed to 

protect fish. A new agency should 

replace NMFS. Corruption in 

Washington DC, where profiteers rule, is 

the root of the problem. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The goal 

of this action is to improve the use of 

fishery resources, reduce discards of 

fish, reduce bycatch, and encourage 

improved economic efficiency through 

LAPP management. Banning trawling 

and reducing the TACs allocated are not 

components of this action, and would 

need to be addressed in a different 

rulemaking process. Groundfish species 

in the North Pacific are widely regarded 

as well-managed by the Council and 

NMFS and under national and 

international standards. None of the 

groundfish fisheries in the North Pacific 

are overfished. NMFS reviewed the 

potential effects of this action on marine 

mammals and concluded it would not 

adversely affect marine mammal 

populations. The remaining accusations 

are unfounded. 

IV. Additional Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

NMFS made several changes to the 

proposed regulatory text in this final 

rule to integrate the Program with 

Amendment 85, clarify regulatory 

language, or correct minor mistakes in 

the proposed rule. 

A. Integration of the Program with 

Amendment 85 

This final rule makes several changes 

to regulations published in the final rule 

for Amendment 85, published 

September 4, 2007, to the FMP that 

modified the allocation of Pacific cod in 

the BSAI. These changes integrate the 

Program and Amendment 85, consistent 

with the revisions anticipated and 

described in the preamble to the 

proposed rule for the Program (72 FR 

30052; May 30, 2007). 

14. In § 679.2 as published September 

4, 2007, NMFS deleted the definition of 

‘‘non-AFA trawl catcher/processor.’’

This definition is consistent with, and 

duplicates the definition of 

‘‘Amendment 80 vessels’’ provided in 

this final rule. 

15. In § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(8) as 

published September 4, 2007, NMFS 

deleted the term ‘‘Non-AFA trawl CP’’

and inserted the term ‘‘Amendment 80 

sector.’’ This change does not alter the 

intent of this paragraph to allocate 

Pacific cod, but uses the nomenclature 

established in the Program. 

16. In § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B) as 

published September 4, 2007, NMFS 

revised the process of reallocating 

Pacific cod in the trawl sectors 

consistent with the changes described in 

the preamble of the proposed rule for 

the Program. NMFS revised this 

paragraph so that references to 

reallocating Pacific cod from the ‘‘NonAFA trawl catcher/processor sector’’

(i.e., ‘‘Amendment 80 sector’’) have 

been removed. NMFS notes that the 

preamble to the proposed rule for the 

Program clearly indicated that there 

would not be a reallocation of Pacific 

cod from the Amendment 80 sector as 

envisioned under Amendment 85, and 

that NMFS would be revising the 

regulations established under 

Amendment 85 pending the approval of 

Amendment 80 and the publication of a 

final rule. 

In addition, NMFS made several 

changes to the proposed rule 

implementing the Program to conform 

to regulations implemented with 

Amendment 85, published September 4, 

2007. 

17. NMFS changed the citation in 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(v) from 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A)(1)(ii) to 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(ii). This is a 

technical correction to ensure proper 

citation to the seasonal apportionment 

of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 

sector. 

18. In § 679.20(a)(7)(vi), NMFS 

referenced the procedure for 

determining if Pacific cod is available 

for reallocation in the regulations 

established in § 679.20(a)(7)(iii) as 

modified by Amendment 85. This 

reference is to ensure that the process 

for determining if Pacific cod may be 

reallocated to the Amendment 80 sector 

established in Amendment 85 is 

applied. 

19. In § 679.64(a), NMFS redesignated 

the paragraphs that are revised in this 

section to conform to changes in the 

designation of paragraphs made under 

Amendment 85. These are housekeeping 

changes. 

B. Other Changes, Corrections, and 

Clarifications 

NMFS made several changes to the 

rule to establish a consistent application 

of GOA sideboard limits to the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE. Sections 679.50, 

679.92, and 679.93 contain 

requirements that the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE must be designated on a 

specific LLP license (LLG 2524) so that 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE can be 

exempted from specific halibut PSC 

sideboard measures and catch 

accounting procedures in the GOA. 

NMFS deleted the requirement that the 

F/V GOLDEN FLEECE must be 

designated on LLP license LLG 2524 to 

receive these exemptions. These 

changes are applicable in 

§§ 679.50(c)(6)(ii); 679.92(b)(2); 

679.92(d)(2); 679.92(d)(3), and 

679.93(d)(4)(ii). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52710 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

These changes are consistent with the 

changes made in response to comment 

1. In response to that comment, NMFS 

removed the requirement that a specific 

LLP license must be used on a specific 

list of Amendment 80 vessels that are 

allowed to fish in the GOA flatfish 

fisheries as defined in Table 39 to Part 

679. The same rationale applicable to 

remove the requirement to use a specific 

LLP license is also applicable to the F/ 

V GOLDEN FLEECE. A review of the 

FMP amendment, the Council motion 

supporting the FMP amendment, and 

the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this 

action do not explicitly indicate that the 

F/V GOLDEN FLEECE must use a 

specific LLP license while fishing in the 

GOA. NMFS made this change to 

consistently apply sideboard measures 

in the GOA. 

NMFS also made several editorial 

corrections to the regulatory text for 

improved readability and accuracy. 

These changes clarify or correct minor 

errors in the phrasing of particular 

provisions. 

20. The response to comment 1 notes 

that NMFS changed the definition of an 

‘‘Amendment 80 LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel’’ to 

‘‘LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel’’ at § 679.2. With 

this change references throughout the 

regulatory text to an ‘‘Amendment 80 

LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel’’ have been 

changed to ‘‘LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel.’’

This change is required for consistency. 

21. The term ‘‘title of abstract’’ is 

referred to several times in the rule. The 

correct term is ‘‘abstract of title’’ This 

correction has been made throughout 

the regulatory text . This change does 

not alter the intent of the term. 

22. Section 679.2 includes the term 

‘‘Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery.’’ That term is defined as ‘‘the 

fishery conducted in the BSAI by 

persons who have not assigned an 

Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 

80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 vessel 

to an Amendment 80 cooperative, and 

who have assigned an Amendment 80 

QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, 

or Amendment 80 vessel to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery.’’

This definition is inconsistent with the 

changes made in response to comment 

26 that allows NMFS to assign 

Amendment 80 QS permits, 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or 

Amendment 80 vessels to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery in 

the event that a person fails to apply in 

a timely fashion. NMFS modified the 

definition to ensure consistency by 

defining the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery as the fishery conducted 

in the BSAI by persons with 

Amendment 80 QS permits, 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

This change does not alter the intent of 

this definition. 

23. Section 679.2 defines the term 

‘‘Amendment 80 sector.’’ The proposed 

definition stated that this term is 

defined as ‘‘Amendment 80 QS holders’’

who ‘‘own Amendment 80 vessels and 

hold Amendment 80 permit.’’ This 

definition is circular. By definition, an 

Amendment 80 QS holder holds an 

Amendment 80 permit. To correct 

redundancy in this term, NMFS deleted 

the phrase ‘‘Amendment 80 permit 

holder.’’ Additionally, the second part 

of the proposed definition stated that 

‘‘Amendment 80 QS holders who hold 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses’’ are 

also members of the Amendment 80 

sector. By definition, a person who 

holds an Amendment 80 QS/LLP 

license holds the Amendment 80 QS 

permit affixed to that LLP license. 

Therefore, NMFS is correcting this 

circular reference by replacing the term 

‘‘Amendment 80 QS holders’’ with 

‘‘persons’’ so that the second part of this 

definition reads ‘‘those persons who 

hold Amendment 80 QS/LLP licenses.’’

24. Section 679.2 includes the term 

‘‘Amendment 80 QS/LLP license.’’ That 

term is defined as ‘‘an LLP license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel issued to an Amendment 80 LLP 

holder with the Amendment 80 QS 

permit assigned to that LLP license.’’

The reference to the LLP license ‘‘issued 

to an Amendment 80 LLP holder’’ is not 

necessary. The inclusion of this term 

confuses the intent of this definition, 

which is to define an Amendment 80 

QS/LLP license as ‘‘an LLP license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel with an Amendment 80 QS 

permit assigned to that LLP license.’’

This clarification does not alter the 

intent of the definition. 

25. Section 679.4(o)(1)(ii) notes that 

an Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to the owner of an Amendment 

80 vessel unless an Amendment 80 QS 

permit is assigned to the holder of an 

LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel under the 

provisions of § 679.90(d). In 

§ 679.4(o)(1)(ii), NMFS included a 

reference to § 679.90(e) which allows an 

Amendment 80 QS permit to be 

assigned to an LLP license through a 

transfer of QS. This clarification does 

not alter the intent of the provision. 

26. Section 679.4 (o)(3)(i) notes that 

NMFS will issue a person an 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

permit if they have submitted a timely 

and complete application and an EDR 

for all Amendment 80 QS permits held 

by that person. With the change in 

response to comment 26, NMFS may 

issue an Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery permit to a person if they fail to 

apply by the annual application 

deadline. To accommodate this change, 

NMFS will change this permitting 

requirement to note that NMFS will 

issue an Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery permit to a person who has 

submitted an application or is assigned 

to the fishery by NMFS. This change is 

required for consistency. 

27. Section 679.5(a)(1)(i)(C) includes a 

reference to paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) 

of this section. Paragraphs (n)(1) and 

(n)(2) have been deleted from this 

section, and the reference to them in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of this section is a 

miscitation that needs to be removed. 

This change is a housekeeping measure 

and does not affect the intent of this 

provision. 

28. Section 679.20(a)(8)(iv) contains a 

reference to Table 32 to this part. It 

should reference Table 33 to this part. 

This change corrects the reference. 

29. Section 679.20(a)(8)(v) contains a 

reference to Table 32 to this part that 

should be a reference to Table 33 to this 

part. This change corrects the reference. 

30. Section 679.27(j)(1)(ii) states that 

‘‘[a]n Amendment 80 cooperative and 

the member of an Amendment 80 

cooperative must comply with the GRS 

***’’. The reference to the members of 

the Amendment 80 cooperative is not 

required and has been deleted because 

the Amendment 80 cooperative is 

subject to the GRS and failure of the 

cooperative to meet that GRS would be 

applicable to the cooperative. NMFS 

notes that Amendment 80 cooperative 

members may still be subject to joint 

and several liability for violations under 

regulations at § 679.91(h)(3)(xvi). 

31. Section 679.28(d)(8)(iii)(B) notes 

that a person using a video monitoring 

system to monitor catch in fish bins 

must have a computer with ‘‘at least one 

external USB (1.1 or 2.0) hard drive.’’

Technically, this requirement should 

require that a person have at least one 

USB ‘‘port’’ that can be used to transfer 

data. This change is necessary to clarify 

that a separate USB hard drive is not 

required. This change does not affect the 

costs of compliance. 

32. The instructions to § 679.31 

contained a reference to a paragraph (g) 

that does not exist. This reference was 

an error and has been removed. In 

addition, the instructions refer to 

modifications to paragraph (a)(1)(i). This 

reference is a miscitation, and has been 

corrected to refer to paragraph (a)(2)(i). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52711 

33. Section 679.90(a)(2) states that a 

person may receive an Amendment 80 

QS permit if they own an Amendment 

80 vessel, hold an Amendment 80 LLP 

license, is a U.S. citizen, and submits a 

timely application for Amendment 80 

QS. NMFS is clarifying that a person 

may receive an Amendment 80 QS 

permit ‘‘based on the legal landings of 

an Amendment 80 vessel.’’ This change 

makes it clear that each Amendment 80 

QS permit is issued to a person based 

on the activities of the vessel that gave 

rise to that permit. This change provides 

additional clarity, but does not change 

the intent of the provision. 

34. Section 679.91(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) 

note that NMFS will assign all 

Amendment 80 QS permits, associated 

vessels, and LLP licenses to either a 

cooperative, or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery depending on 

which fishery a person applies to fish. 

With the change in response to 

comment 26 to remove the requirement 

that all Amendment 80 QS permits must 

be assigned to a specific Amendment 80 

cooperative or the limited access fishery 

in their entirety, this regulation must be 

amended for consistency to note that 

NMFS will assign ‘‘an’’ Amendment 80 

QS permit, vessel, or LLP license to 

either an Amendment 80 cooperative or 

limited access fishery depending on 

how that Amendment 80 QS permit, 

vessel, or LLP license is designated by 

a person. In addition, paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section must be 

amended to be consistent with response 

to comment 26 that allows NMFS to 

assign an Amendment 80 QS permit, 

vessel, or LLP license to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

should a person fail to apply by the 

November 1 annual deadline. These 

changes ensure consistency with 

changes made in responses to 

comments. 

35. Section 679.91(c)(3) states that 

‘‘[t]he amount of ITAC for each 

Amendment 80 species assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative is equal to 

the amount of Amendment 80 QS units 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative by Amendment 80 QS 

holders divided by the total 

Amendment 80 QS pool multiplied by 

the ITAC for that Amendment 80 

species in that management area. For 

clarity, the phrase ‘‘Amendment 80 

sector’’ is added after the phrase ‘‘the 

total Amendment 80 QS pool multiplied 

by the.’’ This change clarifies that the 

amount of CQ issued is determined 

based solely on the amount of the 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC and not the 

combined Amendment 80 and BSAI 

trawl limited access sector ITAC. This 

clarification does not alter the intent of 

the provision. 

36. Section 679.91(c)(4) states that 

‘‘[t]he amount of ITAC in a management 

area for each Amendment 80 species 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery is equal to the ITAC 

remaining after subtracting all CQ 

issued to all Amendment 80 

cooperatives for that Amendment 80 

species in that management area.’’ For 

clarity, the phrase ‘‘Amendment 80 

sector’’ is added after the phrase ‘‘is 

equal to the.’’ This change clarifies that 

the amount of Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery ITAC issued is 

determined based solely on the amount 

of the Amendment 80 sector ITAC and 

not the combined Amendment 80 and 

BSAI trawl limited access sector ITAC. 

This clarification does not alter the 

intent of the provision. 

37. Section 679.92(b)(2)(i) states that 

an ‘‘Amendment 80 vessel that uses 

halibut PSC CQ in the Central GOA 

subject to the regulations established in 

the Rockfish Program under subpart G 

to this part is not subject to the halibut 

PSC sideboard limits in Table 38 to this 

part.’’ NMFS is adding the phrase 

‘‘while fishing under a Rockfish CQ 

permit’’ at the end of this paragraph to 

clarify that the exemption applies only 

while an Amendment 80 vessel is 

actively fishing under the authority of 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program and 

not if an Amendment 80 vessel has 

fished under the authority of that 

program, but is not currently fishing 

under a Central GOA Rockfish Program 

CQ permit. This clarification does not 

alter the intent of the provision. 

38. NMFS revised § 679.93(d) by (1) 

renumbering § 679.93(d)(3) and (d)(4) as 

§ 679.93(d)(4) and (d)(5), respectively; 

(2) inserting a new § 679.93(d)(3) to 

clarify that the owner or operator of an 

Amendment 80 vessel fishing in the 

GOA is required to ensure that the 

vessel has no more than one operational 

line or other conveyance for the 

mechanized movement of catch at the 

location where the observer collects 

species composition sample; (3) 

removing a reference to a requirement 

that the vessel has no more than one 

operational line or other conveyance for 

the mechanized movement of catch 

between the scale used to weigh total 

catch and the location where the 

observer collects species composition 

samples; and (4) clarifying that the 

references in the renumbered 

§ 679.93(d)(4) apply to § 679.93(c). 

These clarifications are necessary to 

meet the clear intent of the Program and 

to avoid confusion for vessels that are 

not subject to scale requirements. 

Section 679.93(d)(3) would have 

required Amendment 80 vessels fishing 

in the GOA to meet certain monitoring 

provisions also applicable to 

Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the 

BSAI. One of these requirements stated 

that the owner or operator of an 

Amendment 80 vessel fishing in the 

GOA would be required to ensure that 

the vessel has no more than one 

operational line or other conveyance for 

the mechanized movement of catch 

between the scale used to weigh total 

catch and the location where the 

observer collects species composition 

samples. However, Amendment 80 

vessels fishing in the GOA will not be 

required to carry a scale used to weight 

total catch. Therefore, NMFS is inserting 

a paragraph to clarify that vessels must 

have only one operational line or other 

conveyance for the mechanized 

movement of catch between the scale 

used to weigh total catch and the 

location where the observer collects 

species composition samples. The intent 

of this provision is to ensure that all 

catch passes through the point at which 

the observer collects samples to ensure 

proper catch sampling. 

This change is consistent with the 

description of the need for one 

operational line provided in the 

preamble to the proposed rule which 

states ‘‘[t]he use of more than one 

operational line could lead to 

improperly sampled catch because catch 

could be diverted or otherwise 

conveyed in a manner that would limit 

adequate sampling * * *’’ Therefore, 

vessels would be prohibited from the 

use of multiple lines for conveying fish 

between the bins and the area where 

unsorted catch is sampled by the 

observer’’ (72 FR 30105). This is also 

consistent with the analysis of M&E 

provisions in section 1.10.6 in the final 

EA/RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES). 

The clarification that the references in 

the renumbered § 679.93(d)(4) apply to 

§ 679.93(c) is a technical correction to 

ensure proper reference to M&E 

provisions contained in the previous 

paragraph. 

39. Section 679.93(e)(3) contains the 

phrase ‘‘Amendment 80 sideboard 

species.’’ This phrase is not explicitly 

defined in § 679.2, but refers to those 

species that are described in Table 37 to 

part 679. NMFS is including a reference 

to Table 37 to part 679 in this paragraph 

for clarity. This clarification does not 

alter the intent of the provision. 

40. Rows 3 through 7 in Column C of 

Table 34 to part 679 incorrectly 

calculate the allocation of yellowfin sole 

ITAC allocated to the Amendment 80 

sector. The equation in each row of 

column C of the table does not need to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52712 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

sum the results of all previous rows in 

column C. The correct formula for the 

calculation in rows 2 through 7 in 

column C is to add the sum of each row 

to the results of the previous row in 

column C. The summation sign is not 

necessary nor is the reference to all 

previous rows in rows 3 through 7 in 

column C. These references are deleted. 

This change corrects an error in the 

notation of the algorithm and does not 

alter the intent of this provision. 

Other editorial changes were made 

throughout the rule that NMFS 

determined had no substantive effect. 

Classification 

NMFS has determined that 

Amendment 80 and the provisions in 

this rule that implement Amendment 80 

are consistent with the MSA National 

Standards and other applicable laws. 

NMFS made the determination that this 

rule is consistent after taking into 

account the data, views, and comments 

received during the comment period. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) 

A FRFA was prepared for this rule, as 

required by section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Copies 

of the FRFA prepared for this final rule 

are available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). The FRFA incorporates the 

IRFA, a summary of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, NMFS’ responses 

to those comments, and a summary of 

the analyses completed to support the 

action. A summary of the FRFA follows. 

Why Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered and Objectives of, and Legal 

Basis for, the Rule 

The FRFA describes in detail the 

reasons why this action is being 

proposed, describes the objectives and 

legal basis for the rule, and discusses 

both small and non-small regulated 

entities to adequately characterize the 

fishery participants. The MSA, CRP, 

Coast Guard Act, and MSRA provide the 

legal basis for the rule, as discussed in 

Section II of this preamble. The 

objectives of the rule are to reduce 

excessive fishing capacity, end the race 

for fish under the current management 

strategy, reduce bycatch, and reduce 

discards for commercial fishing vessels 

using trawl gear in the non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. By 

ending the race for fish, NMFS expects 

the action to increase resource 

conservation, improve economic 

efficiency, and address social concerns. 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Final Rule would Apply 

For purposes of a FRFA, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has 

established that a business involved in 

fish harvesting is a small business if it 

is independently owned and operated, 

not dominant in its field of operation 

(including its affiliates), and if it has 

combined annual gross receipts not in 

excess of $4.0 million for all its 

affiliated operations worldwide. A 

seafood processor is a small business if 

it is independently owned and operated, 

not dominant in its field of operation, 

and employs 500 or fewer persons on a 

full-time, part-time, temporary, or other 

basis, at all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. 

Because the SBA does not have a size 

criterion for businesses that are 

involved in both the harvesting and 

processing of seafood products, NMFS 

has in the past applied and continues to 

apply SBA’s fish harvesting criterion for 

these businesses because catcher/ 

processors are first and foremost fish 

harvesting businesses. Therefore, a 

business involved in both the harvesting 

and processing of seafood products is a 

small business if it meets the $4.0 

million criterion for fish harvesting 

operations. NMFS currently is 

reviewing its small entity size 

classification for all catcher/processors 

in the United States. However, until 

new guidance is adopted, NMFS will 

continue to use the annual receipts 

standard for catcher/processors. NMFS 

plans to issue new guidance in the near 

future. 

The FRFA contains a description and 

estimate of the number of small entities 

to which the rule would apply. The 

FRFA estimates that as many as 28 

entities, that own approximately 28 

catcher/processor vessels, would be 

eligible to receive QS under the 

Program. 

Of the estimated 28 entities owning 

vessels eligible for fishing under the 

Program, one is estimated to be a small 

entity because it generated less than 

$4.0 million in gross revenue based on 

participation in 1998 through 2004. All 

other entities owning eligible catcher/ 

processor vessels are not small entities 

as defined by the RFA. 

One entity made at least one landing 

as a non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

from 1998 to 2004, but did not appear 

to qualify as an eligible Amendment 80 

vessel. This entity is not a small entity 

by SBA standards. Moreover, this vessel 

that the FRFA considers ‘‘nonqualified’’ would not be allowed to 

continue fishing under the requirements 

imposed by the CRP. Therefore, the nonqualified vessels is not considered 

impacted by the rule and is not 

discussed in this FRFA. 

The six CDQ groups participating in 

the CDQ Program are not-for-profit 

entities that are not dominant in the 

overall BSAI fishing industry. Thus, the 

six CDQ groups directly regulated by the 

rule would be considered small entities 

or ‘‘small organizations’’ under the RFA. 

Several communities (e.g., Dutch 

Harbor, Seattle) could be indirectly 

impacted by the Program. Most of the 

Amendment 80 vessels have home ports 

in Seattle, Washington, but operate 

throughout Alaska and rely on other 

communities for support services. The 

specific impacts on these communities 

cannot be determined until NMFS 

issues QS and eligible harvesters begin 

fishing under the Program. Other 

supporting businesses may also be 

indirectly affected by this action if it 

leads to fewer vessels participating in 

the fishery. These impacts are analyzed 

in the RIR prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Public Comments Received on the IRFA 

Proposed regulations were published 

in the Federal Register on May 30, 2007 

(72 FR 30052). An Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 

prepared for the proposed rule, and was 

described in the classification section of 

the preamble to the proposed rule. The 

public comment period ended on June 

29, 2007. Two comments were received 

that commented directly or indirectly 

on the IRFA. These comments and 

NMFS’ responses are found under 

comments 5 and 79 in the Response to 

Comments Section, above. 

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

Implementation of the Program 

changes the overall reporting structure 

and recordkeeping requirements of the 

participants in BSAI and GOA 

groundfish fisheries. All directly 

regulated entities are required to 

provide additional reporting. Each 

harvester is required to track harvests to 

avoid exceeding his or her allocation. 

NMFS must develop new databases to 

issue QS and CQ and monitor 

harvesting and processing allocations. 

These changes require the development 

of new reporting systems. 

To participate in the Program, persons 

must complete application forms, 

transfer forms, reporting requirements, 

and other collections-of-information. 

These forms are either required under 

existing regulations or are required for 

the administration of the Program. 

These forms impose costs on small 

entities in gathering the required 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52713 

information and completing the forms. 

With the exception of specific 

equipment tests, which are performed 

by NMFS employees or other 

professionals, basic word processing 

skills are the only skills needed for the 

preparation of these reports or records. 

NMFS has estimated the costs of 

complying with the reporting 

requirements based on the burden hours 

per response, number of responses per 

year, and a standard estimate of $25 per 

burden hour. Persons must submit an 

application for Amendment 80 QS the 

start of the Program. Persons must 

complete additional forms every year, 

such as the applications to fish for an 

Amendment 80 cooperative or 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

Additionally, reporting for purposes of 

catch accounting or transfer of CQ 

among Amendment 80 cooperatives will 

be completed more frequently. 

It will cost participants in the 

Program an estimated $56 to complete 

applications to participate in the 

Program, $55 for the annual application 

to participate in an Amendment 80 

cooperative or limited access fishery, 

and $61 to complete a transfer of CQ. 

NMFS considered multiple 

alternatives to effectively implement 

specific provisions within the Program 

through regulation. In each instance, 

NMFS attempted to impose the least 

burden on the public, including the 

small entities subject to the Program. 

The groundfish landing report 

(Internet version and optional fax 

version) will be used to debit CQ and 

track catch in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. All retained 

catch must be weighed, reported, and 

debited from the appropriate account 

under which the catch was harvested. 

NMFS considered the options of a 

paper-based or an electronic 

recordkeeping and reporting system. 

NMFS chose to implement an electronic 

reporting system as a more convenient, 

accurate, and timely method. 

Additionally, the electronic reporting 

system would provide continuous 

access to accounts. These provisions 

would make recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements less burdensome 

on participants by allowing participants 

to more efficiently monitor their 

accounts and fishing activities. NMFS 

believes that the added benefits of the 

electronic reporting system outweigh 

any benefits of the paper-based system. 

However, NMFS will also provide an 

optional backup using existing 

telecommunication and paper-based 

methods, which would reduce the 

burden on small entities in more remote 

areas with limited electronic 

infrastructure. 

Under this rule, catcher/processors 

may be required to purchase and install 

motion-compensated scales (i.e., flow 

scale) to weigh all fish at-sea. Approved 

flow scales cost approximately $50,000. 

Equipment to outfit an observer station, 

including a motion-compensated 

platform scale to verify the accuracy of 

the flow scale, costs between $6000 and 

$12,000. Due to space constraints on 

many catcher/processors, the need to 

relocate sorting space and processing 

equipment, and the wide range of 

configurations on individual vessels, the 

installation cost range for the scales and 

observer sample stations could cost 

between $20,000 and $250,000 per 

vessel. Installation costs exceeding 

$100,000 are expected to be rare. The 

total cost of purchasing and installing 

scales and sample stations may range 

between $76,000 and $300,000 per 

vessel. Based on discussions with 

equipment vendors, NMFS estimates 

that 10 catcher/processors, none of 

which are small entities, would choose 

to fish in the BSAI and would be 

required to have scales. This estimate 

includes catcher/processor vessels that 

have already installed flow scales in 

compliance with other programs (i.e., 

CDQ Program and Central GOA 

Rockfish Program) and is likely to 

overestimate the total number of entities 

that will install this equipment based 

solely on the requirements for the 

Program. 

The Program will increase observer 

coverage for Program participants in 

most cases. In similar NMFS-managed 

quota fisheries, NMFS requires that all 

fishing activity be observed. NMFS must 

maintain timely and accurate records of 

harvests in fisheries with small 

allocations that are harvested by a fleet 

with a potentially high harvest rate. 

Additionally, halibut PSC and crab PSC 

rates must be monitored. Such 

monitoring can only be accomplished 

through the use of onboard observers. 

Although this imposes additional costs, 

participants in the fishery can form 

cooperatives, which would limit the 

number of vessels required to harvest a 

cooperative’s CQ, and organize fishing 

operations to limit the amount of time 

when additional observer coverage 

would be required to offset additional 

costs. The exact overall additional 

observer costs per vessel cannot be 

predicted because costs will vary with 

the specific fishing operations of that 

vessel. NMFS estimates that a 

requirement for increased observer 

coverage would cost approximately 

$355 per day. Additional costs may be 

incurred by owners of catcher/ 

processors that reconfigure their vessels 

to ensure that adequate space is 

available for the additional observer. 

These costs cannot be predicted and 

will vary depending on specific 

conditions of each vessel. 

NMFS determined that a vessel 

monitoring system (VMS) is essential to 

properly enforce of the Program. 

Therefore, owners and operators of 

vessels participating in the Program 

would be required to use a VMS. 

Depending on which brand of VMS a 

vessel owner or operator chooses to 

purchase, NMFS estimates that this 

requirement would impose a cost of 

$2,000 per vessel for equipment 

purchase, $780 for installation and 

maintenance, and $5 per day for data 

transmission costs. NMFS does not 

estimate that any additional vessel 

owners or operators would incur these 

costs if they choose to participate in the 

Program. Those vessels that would be 

likely to participate in the Program are 

already subject to VMS requirements 

under existing regulations. 

NMFS has determined that special 

catch handling requirements for 

catcher/processors may subject vessel 

owners and operators to additional costs 

depending on the monitoring option 

chosen. The costs for providing line of 

sight for observer monitoring are highly 

variable depending on bin modifications 

the vessel may make, the location of the 

observer sampling station, and the type 

of viewing port installed. These costs 

cannot be estimated with existing 

information. Some vessel owners and 

operators that are eligible to participate 

in this Program may modify some of 

their vessels to meet these requirements 

in the Central GOA Rockfish Program 

and would not be expected to incur any 

additional costs for those vessels under 

the Program. 

Because NMFS would allow vessel 

owners and operators to select the video 

option using performance standards, the 

costs for a vessel to implement this 

option could be quite variable, 

depending on the nature of the system 

chosen. In most cases, the system would 

consist of one digital video recorder 

(DVR)/computer system and between 

two and eight cameras. DVR systems 

range in price from $1,500 to $10,000, 

and cameras cost from $75 to $300 each. 

Data storage costs will vary depending 

on the frame rate, color density, amount 

of compression, image size, and need for 

redundant storage capacity. NMFS 

estimates data storage will cost between 

$400 and $3,000 per vessel. 

Installation costs will be a function of 

where the DVR/computer can be located 

in relation to an available power source, 

cameras, and the observer sampling 

station. NMFS estimates that a fairly 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52714 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

simple installation will cost 

approximately $2,000, and a complex 

installation will cost approximately 

$10,000, per vessel. However, these 

costs could be considerably lower if the 

vessel owner chooses to install the 

equipment while upgrading other 

wiring. Thus, total system costs, 

including DVR/computer equipment, 

cameras, data storage, and installation 

would be expected to range between 

$4,050 per vessel for a very simple 

inexpensive system with low 

installation costs, and $24,500 per 

vessel for a complex, sophisticated 

system with high installation costs. 

Annual system maintenance costs are 

difficult to estimate because much of 

this technology has not been extensively 

used at-sea in the United States. 

However, NMFS estimates an annual 

cost of $680 to $4,100 per year based on 

a hard disk failure rate of 20 percent per 

year, and a DVR/computer lifespan of 

three years. 

Vessel owners and operators that are 

eligible to participate in the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program and the 

Amendment 80 Program may modify 

their vessels to meet these requirements 

in the Central GOA Rockfish Program 

and would not be expected to incur any 

additional installation costs under the 

Program. Annual system maintenance 

costs are anticipated to be partially 

borne by the requirements in the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

The preferred alternative, Alternative 

4 (described in this rule), implements 

new TAC allocations to CDQ groups in 

compliance with recent amendments to 

the MSA. CDQ groups will receive 10.7 

percent of allocated species. One nonAFA trawl catcher/processor in this 

fishery is a small entity. The 

opportunity for non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors to form cooperatives offers 

the potential for reduced costs and 

increased revenues for all affected firms, 

including the small entity. It is not clear 

how the small entity’s bargaining 

position relative to other firms would be 

affected by the conditions for forming a 

cooperative under this alternative 

compared to other alternatives. TAC 

allocations are similar to historical 

allocations for yellowfin sole, rock sole, 

and flathead sole, and slightly smaller 

for Atka mackerel, and Aleutian Islands 

Pacific ocean perch. Operations would 

face some additional monitoring costs 

associated with Amendment 80. 

Alternative 1 is the no action/status 

quo alternative. Under the status quo, 

the fishery would continue competitive 

fishing within the confines of the 

license limitation restrictions on the 

vessels that may participate. This 

alternative would not implement new 

TAC allocations to the CDQ Program for 

relevant species at 10 percent of the 

TAC, an option that was consistent with 

the MSA at the time the Council took 

final action on Amendment 80. Costs 

are believed to be higher than under 

other alternatives, and revenues are 

believed to be lower. The costs of 

meeting GRS requirements are believed 

to be higher than under the other 

alternatives due to the inability of vessel 

participants to form cooperatives and 

meet GRS requirements on an aggregate 

basis. The preferred alternative has 

smaller adverse impacts than the status 

quo, and better meets the objectives of 

this action to reduce bycatch, improve 

utilization of fishery resources, and 

encourage cooperative management to 

end the race for fish and reduce costs 

associated with GRS compliance. 

Alternative 2 is a multiple 

cooperatives alternative. Cooperatives 

may be formed if they have 15 percent 

of the eligible participants and at least 

two separate entities. CDQ allocations 

for relevant species would be 

established at 15 percent of the TAC, an 

option that was consistent with the 

MSA at the time the Council took final 

action on Amendment 80. The 

opportunity to form cooperatives offers 

the potential for reduced costs and 

increased revenues for all affected firms, 

including the small entity. It is not clear 

how the small entity’s bargaining 

position relative to other firms would be 

affected by the conditions for forming a 

cooperative under this alternative 

compared to other alternatives. TAC 

allocations are similar to historical 

allocations for yellowfin sole, rock sole, 

and flathead sole, Atka mackerel, and 

Aleutian Island Pacific ocean perch. The 

threshold to cooperative formation in 

this alternative is lower than 

Alternatives 3 and 4 (only unique 

entities with a minimum of 15 percent 

of the Amendment 80 QS permits is 

needed to form a cooperative). 

Therefore, cooperative formation may be 

more likely under this alternative than 

the other alternatives considered. 

Bargaining power of the small entity, 

compared to that of larger entities, may 

or may not be greater than under the 

preferred alternative. Allocations for 

yellowfin sole, rock sole, and flathead 

sole are similar to those under the 

preferred alternative, and slightly 

greater for Atka mackerel and Aleutian 

Islands Pacific ocean perch. Additional 

monitoring costs would be similar to 

those under the preferred alternative. 

Alternative 2 is very similar to 

Alternative 4. The Amendment 80 

sector receives a somewhat smaller 

allocation of Atka mackerel and 

Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch 

under Alternative 4 than Alternative 2. 

It is not clear whether cooperative rules 

would be better for the small entity 

under Alternative 2 or 4. Alternative 4 

provides greater entry level fishing 

opportunities for non-non-AFA catcher/ 

processors, and catcher vessels 

including vessels fishing out of Adak, 

vessels that are not directly regulated by 

this action, because of the reduced Atka 

mackerel and Aleutian Islands Pacific 

ocean perch allocations. 

Alternative 3 is the single cooperative 

alternative. This alternative allows the 

formation of a cooperative if it has 67 

percent of the eligible participants, and 

is comprised of at least three separate 

entities. CDQ allocations for relevant 

species would be established at 10.7 

percent of the TAC consistent with the 

MSA. This alternative would implement 

new TAC allocations to CDQ groups, in 

compliance with recent amendments to 

the MSA. The opportunity to form 

cooperatives offers the potential for 

reduced costs and increased revenues 

for all affected firms, including the 

small entity. 

The difficulties of forming a 

cooperative under this alternative are 

expected to be greater than those under 

Alternatives 2 and 4. It is not clear how 

the small entity’s bargaining position 

relative to other firms would be affected 

by the conditions for forming a 

cooperative under this alternative 

compared to other alternatives. TAC 

allocations to the Amendment 80 sector 

are smaller under this alternative than 

under the preferred alternative. 

Operations would face some additional 

monitoring costs associated with 

Amendment 80. 

Challenges to cooperative formation 

are greater, increasing the risk that a 

cooperative might not form, or that 

some operations will not be able to take 

advantage of the benefits of the 

cooperative. Bargaining power of the 

small entity within the cooperative may 

be smaller (only one cooperative can 

form, and it only needs three members 

to form; a small operation would 

contribute fewer vessels to meeting the 

vessel count threshold for cooperative 

formation, and would contribute less 

fishing history to the cooperative). 

Additional monitoring costs would be 

similar to those under the preferred 

alternative. 

The standards for cooperative 

formation under Alternative 3 raised 

serious concerns among industry 

participants over the ability of the 

Amendment 80 sector to organize the 

single cooperative and provide benefits 

to most of the fleet. Failure to form a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52715 

cooperative would make it difficult for 

Alternative 3 to address the important 

objective of enabling the industry to 

improve economic efficiency through 

cooperative arrangements, including the 

ability to reduce the costs required to 

comply with GRS requirements. 

Alternative 4 is preferable to 

Alternative 3 because it reduces the 

threshold for cooperative formation, 

thereby encouraging the formation of 

more efficient operations. Additionally, 

Alternative 4 is preferable to Alternative 

2 in that the number of cooperatives that 

may form is more limited, which is 

expected to reduce administrative costs 

of compliance possible under multiple 

cooperative arrangements. 

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, 

Overlap or Conflict With the Rule 

No federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this action have 

been identified. 

Collection-of-Information 

This final rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

that have been approved by the OMB 

under the control numbers listed below. 

Public reporting burdens per response 

for these requirements are listed by 

OMB control number. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0213 

Total public reporting burden for this 

collection is 36,705 hours. 

Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are described in this 

collection. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0269 

Public reporting burden per response 

is estimated to average 1 hr for a CDQ 

delivery report and 15 minutes for a 

CDQ catch report. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0330 

Public reporting burden per response 

is estimated to average 0.1 hr per at-sea 

scale inspection request; 0.17 hr for 

observer sampling station inspection 

request; 0.17 hr for bin monitoring 

inspection request; 1 hr for video 

monitoring system; 2 hr for at-sea scale 

approval report/sticker; 0.03 hr for 

observer notification of scale tests; 0.75 

hr for records of at-sea scale tests; and 

0.02 hr for printed output, at-sea scales. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0334 

Total public reporting burden for this 

collection is 544 hours. License 

Limitation Program (LLP) applications 

are described in this collection. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0445 

Total public reporting burden for this 

collection is 13,152 hours. Vessel 

monitoring system requirements are 

described in this collection. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0515 

Total public reporting burden for this 

collection is 3,343 hours. Interagency 

electronic reporting system (IERS) 

requirements are described in this 

collection. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0565 

(Amendment 80 Permits) 

Public reporting burden per response 

is estimated to average 2 hr for the 

Application for Amendment 80 QS; 2 hr 

for the Application for CQ; 2 hr for the 

Application for the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery; 2 hr for the 

Application to Transfer Amendment 80 

QS; 2 hr for the Application for CQ 

Transfer; 4 hr for Annual Amendment 

80 cooperative report; and 4 hr for a 

letter of appeal, if denied a permit. 

OMB Control No. 0648–0564 

(Amendment 80 EDR) 

Public reporting burden per response 

is estimated to average 7.5 hr for an 

Economic Data Report and 3 hr for 

verification of data. 

Response times include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments 

regarding these burden estimates, or any 

other aspect of this data collection, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSEES) and 

by e-mail to: 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule, or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency shall 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. As part of this 

rulemaking process, NMFS Alaska 

Region has developed an Internet site 

that provides easy access to details of 

this final rule, including links to the 

final rule, and frequently asked 

questions regarding Program. The Small 

Entity Compliance Guide for the 

Program is available on the Internet at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Copies of this 

final rule are available upon request 

from the NMFS, Alaska Regional Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

List of Subjects 

15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 30, 2007. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR 

chapter IX, and 50 CFR chapter VI as 

follows: 

15 CFR Chapter IX [Amended] 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 902.1, the table in paragraph (b) 

under ‘‘50 CFR’’ is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the existing entry for 

‘‘679.4(g) and (k)’’; and 

■ b. Adding new entries for ‘‘679.4(g)’’, 

‘‘679.4(k)’’, ‘‘679.4(o)’’, ‘‘679.5(s)’’, 

‘‘679.90’’, ‘‘679.91’’, ‘‘679.93’’, and 

‘‘679.94’’ in alphanumeric order to read 

as follows: 

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section 

where the information 

collection requirement 

is located 

Current OMB control 

number (all numbers 

begin with 0648–) 

* * * * * 

50 CFR 

* * * * * 

679.4(g) ..................... –0334. 

679.4(k) ..................... –0334, –0545, –0565. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52716 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR part or section 

where the information 

collection requirement 

is located 

Current OMB control 

number (all numbers 

begin with 0648–) 

* * * * * 

679.4(o) ..................... –0565. 

* * * * * 

679.5(s) ..................... –0565. 

* * * * * 

679.90 ....................... –0565. 

679.91 ....................... –0565. 

679.93 ....................... –0213, –0330, –0565. 

679.94 ....................... –0564. 

50 CFR Chapter VI [Amended] 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

■ 3. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 679 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et 

seq., 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447. 

■ 4. In § 679.2: 

■ a. Remove the definition of ‘‘Non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processor.’’

■ b. Add the following definitions in 

alphabetical order: ‘‘Amendment 80 

cooperative’’, ‘‘Amendment 80 fishery’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 initial QS pool’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 legal landing’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery’’, ‘‘Amendment 80 LLP license’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 LLP/QS license’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 mackerel QS’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 mackerel vessel’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 official record’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 Program’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 PSC’’, ‘‘Amendment 80 

QS holder’’, ‘‘Amendment 80 QS 

permit’’, ‘‘Amendment 80 QS pool’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 QS unit’’, 

‘‘Amendment 80 sector’’, ‘‘Amendment 

80 species’’, ‘‘Amendment 80 vessel’’, 

‘‘BSAI trawl limited access sector’’, ‘‘CQ 

permit’’, ‘‘Economic data report (EDR)’’, 

‘‘Initial Total Allowable Catch (ITAC)’’, 

‘‘LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel’’, and revise the 

definition of ‘‘Cooperative quota (CQ)’’, 

and the heading of the definition of 

‘‘Ten percent or greater direct or 

indirect ownership interest for purposes 

of the Rockfish Program’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Amendment 80 cooperative means a 

group of Amendment 80 QS holders 

who have chosen to fish cooperatively 

for Amendment 80 species under the 

requirements of subpart H to this part 

and who have applied for and received 

a CQ permit issued by NMFS to catch 

a quantity of fish expressed as a portion 

of the ITAC and crab and halibut PSC 

limits. 

Amendment 80 fishery means an 

Amendment 80 cooperative or the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

Amendment 80 initial QS pool means 

the sum of Amendment 80 QS units 

established for an Amendment 80 

species in a management area based on 

the Amendment 80 official record and 

used for the initial allocation of 

Amendment 80 QS units and use cap 

calculations as described in § 679.92(a). 

Amendment 80 legal landing means 

the total catch of Amendment 80 species 

in a management area in the BSAI by an 

Amendment 80 vessel that: 

(1) Was made in compliance with 

state and Federal regulations in effect at 

that time; and 

(2) Is recorded on a Weekly 

Production Report from January 20, 

1998, through December 31, 2004; and 

(3) Amendment 80 species caught 

while test fishing, fishing under an 

experimental, exploratory, or scientific 

activity permit, or fishing under the 

Western Alaska CDQ Program are not 

considered Amendment 80 legal 

landings. 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

means the fishery conducted in the 

BSAI by persons with Amendment 80 

QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP 

licenses, or Amendment 80 vessels 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. 

Amendment 80 LLP license means: 

(1) Any LLP license that is endorsed 

for groundfish in the Bering Sea subarea 

or Aleutian Islands subarea with a 

catcher/processor designation and that 

designates an Amendment 80 vessel in 

an approved application for 

Amendment 80 QS; 

(2) Any LLP license that designates an 

Amendment 80 vessel at any time after 

the effective date of the Amendment 80 

Program; and 

(3) Any Amendment 80 LLP/QS 

license. 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS license means 

an LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel with an 

Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to 

that LLP license. 

Amendment 80 mackerel QS means 

Atka mackerel QS derived from 

Amendment 80 legal landings assigned 

to an Amendment 80 mackerel vessel. 

Amendment 80 mackerel vessel 

means an Amendment 80 vessel that is 

not an Amendment 80 non-mackerel 

vessel. 

Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS 

means Atka mackerel QS derived from 

Amendment 80 legal landings assigned 

to an Amendment 80 non-mackerel 

vessel. 

Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel 

means an Amendment 80 vessel that is 

less than 200 feet in length overall and 

that has been used to catch less than 2.0 

percent of the total Amendment 80 legal 

landings of BSAI Atka mackerel. 

Amendment 80 official record means 

information used by NMFS to determine 

eligibility to participate in the 

Amendment 80 Program and to assign 

specific catch privileges to Amendment 

80 QS holders. 

Amendment 80 Program means the 

Program implemented under subpart H 

of this part to manage Amendment 80 

species fisheries by limiting 

participation in these fisheries to 

eligible participants. 

Amendment 80 PSC means halibut 

and crab PSC as described in Table 35 

to this part that are allocated to the 

Amendment 80 sector. 

Amendment 80 QS holder means a 

person who is issued an Amendment 80 

QS permit by NMFS. 

Amendment 80 QS permit means a 

permit issued by NMFS that designates 

the amount of Amendment 80 QS units 

derived from the Amendment 80 legal 

landings assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel for each Amendment 80 species 

in a management area. 

Amendment 80 QS pool means the 

sum of Amendment 80 QS units 

established for each Amendment 80 

species in a management area based on 

the Amendment 80 official record. 

Amendment 80 QS unit means a 

measure of the Amendment 80 QS pool 

based on Amendment 80 legal landings. 

Amendment 80 sector means: 

(1) Those Amendment 80 QS holders 

who own Amendment 80 vessels and 

hold Amendment 80 LLP licenses; or 

(2) Those persons who hold 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses. 

Amendment 80 species means the 

following species in the following 

regulatory areas: 

(1) BSAI Atka mackerel; 

(2) Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean 

perch; 

(3) BSAI flathead sole; 

(4) BSAI Pacific cod; 

(5) BSAI rock sole; and 

(6) BSAI yellowfin sole. 

Amendment 80 vessel means: 

(1) The vessels listed in Column A of 

Table 31 to this part with the 

corresponding USCG Documentation 

Number listed in Column B of Table 31 

to this part; or 

(2) Any vessel that: 

(i) Is not listed as an AFA trawl 

catcher/processor under sections 

208(e)(1) through (20) of the American 

Fisheries Act; and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52717 

(ii) Has been used to harvest with 

trawl gear and process not less than 150 

mt of Atka mackerel, flathead sole, 

Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, rock 

sole, turbot, or yellowfin sole in the 

aggregate in the BSAI during the period 

from January 1, 1997, through December 

31, 2002. 

* * * * * 

BSAI trawl limited access sector 

means fisheries conducted in the BSAI 

by persons using trawl gear and who are 

not: 

(1) Using an Amendment 80 vessel or 

an Amendment 80 LLP license; or 

(2) Fishing for CDQ groundfish. 

* * * * * 

Cooperative quota (CQ): 

(1) For purposes of the Amendment 

80 Program means: 

(i) The annual catch limit of an 

Amendment 80 species that may be 

caught by an Amendment 80 

cooperative while fishing under a CQ 

permit; 

(ii) The amount of annual halibut and 

crab PSC that may be used by an 

Amendment 80 cooperative while 

fishing under a CQ permit. 

(2) For purposes of the Rockfish 

Program means: 

(i) The annual catch limit of a primary 

rockfish species or secondary species 

that may be harvested by a rockfish 

cooperative while fishing under a CQ 

permit; 

(2) The amount of annual halibut PSC 

that may be used by a rockfish 

cooperative in the Central GOA while 

fishing under a CQ permit (see rockfish 

halibut PSC in this section). 

CQ permit means a permit issued to 

an Amendment 80 cooperative under 

§ 679.4(o)(2) or to a rockfish cooperative 

under § 679.4(n)(1). 

* * * * * 

Economic data report (EDR) means 

the report of cost, labor, earnings, and 

revenue data required under § 679.94. 

* * * * * 

Initial Total Allowable Catch (ITAC) 

means the tonnage of a TAC for an 

Amendment 80 species in a 

management area that is available for 

apportionment to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector and the Amendment 80 

sector in a calendar year after deducting 

from the TAC the CDQ reserve, the 

incidental catch allowance the Regional 

Administrator determines is required on 

an annual basis, as applicable, to 

account for projected incidental catch of 

an Amendment 80 species by nonAmendment 80 vessels engaged in 

directed fishing for groundfish and, for 

Atka mackerel, the Atka mackerel jig 

allocation. 

* * * * * 

LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel means the LLP 

license listed in Column C of Table 31 

to this part that corresponds to the 

vessel listed in Column A of Table 31 

to this part with the USCG 

Documentation Number listed in 

Column B of Table 31 to this part. 

* * * * * 

Ten percent or greater direct or 

indirect ownership interest for purposes 

of the Amendment 80 Program and 

Rockfish Program * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 679.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(xiii), 

(b)(6)(iv), (k)(12), and (o) are added to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.4 Permits. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

If program permit or card type is: Permit is in effect from issue date through 

end of: 

For more information, 

see. . . 

* * * * * * * 

(xiii) Amendment 80 Program: 

(A) Amendment 80 QS permit ........................................................................................ Indefinite .................................................... § 679.90(b). 

(B) CQ permit .................................................................................................................. Specified fishing year ................................ § 679.91(b). 

(C) Amendment 80 limited access fishery ...................................................................... Specified fishing year ................................ § 679.91(b). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(iv) NMFS will reissue a Federal 

fisheries permit to any person who 

holds a Federal fisheries permit issued 

to an Amendment 80 vessel. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(12) Amendment 80 Program. In 

addition to other requirements of this 

part, a license holder must have an 

Amendment 80 LLP license to conduct 

fishing for an Amendment 80 species 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. 

* * * * * 

(o) Amendment 80 Program—(1) 

Amendment 80 QS permit. (i) An 

Amendment 80 QS permit is issued to 

a person who submits a timely and 

complete application for Amendment 80 

QS that is approved by NMFS under 

§ 679.90(b). 

(ii) An Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to the owner of an Amendment 

80 vessel that gave rise to that permit 

under the provisions of § 679.90(b), 

unless the Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to the holder of an LLP license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel under the provisions of 

§ 679.90(d) or § 679.90(e). 

(iii) If an Amendment 80 QS permit 

is assigned to the owner of an 

Amendment 80 vessel the Amendment 

80 QS permit will designate the 

Amendment 80 vessel to which that 

permit is assigned. 

(iv) If an Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to the holder of an LLP license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel under the provisions of 

§ 679.90(d)(2)(ii) or § 679.90(e)(4), the 

Amendment 80 QS permit will be 

permanently affixed to the LLP license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel which will be designated as an 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. 

(v) Amendment 80 QS units assigned 

to an Amendment 80 QS permit are 

non-severable from that Amendment 80 

QS permit and if transferred, the 

Amendment 80 QS permit must be 

transferred in its entirety to another 

person under the provisions of 

§ 679.90(e). 

(vi) A person must hold an 

Amendment 80 LLP license to hold an 

Amendment 80 QS permit. 

(2) Amendment 80 Cooperative quota 

(CQ) permit. (i) A CQ permit is issued 

annually to an Amendment 80 

cooperative that submits a timely and 

complete application for CQ that is 

approved by NMFS as described at 

§ 679.91(b)(4). 

(ii) A CQ permit authorizes an 

Amendment 80 cooperative to catch a 

quantity of fish expressed as a portion 

of the ITAC and halibut and crab PSC 

that may be held for exclusive use by 

that Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(iii) A CQ permit will indicate the 

amount of Amendment 80 species that 

may be caught by the Amendment 80 

cooperative, and the amount of 

Amendment 80 crab and halibut PSC 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52718 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

that may be used by the Amendment 80 

cooperative. The CQ permit will list the 

members of the Amendment 80 

cooperative, Amendment 80 LLP 

licenses, Amendment 80 QS permits, 

and Amendment 80 vessels that are 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative. 

(iv) The amount of CQ listed on the 

CQ permit will be based on: 

(A) The amount of Amendment 80 QS 

units held by all members of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative designated 

on a timely and complete application 

for CQ as described under § 679.91(b) 

that is approved by NMFS; 

(B) The Amendment 80 QS units 

derived from Amendment 80 QS 

permits held by members of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative who have 

submitted a timely and complete EDR 

for all Amendment 80 QS permits held 

by that member as described under 

§ 679.94; and 

(C) The amount of CQ as modified by 

an application for CQ transfer as 

described under § 679.91(g) that is 

approved by NMFS. 

(v) A CQ permit is valid until 

whichever of the following occurs first: 

(A) Until the end of the year for which 

the CQ permit is issued; or 

(B) Until the permit is revoked, 

suspended, or modified pursuant to 

§ 679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904. 

(vi) A legible copy of the CQ permit 

must be carried onboard an Amendment 

80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative when fishing in the BSAI or 

adjacent waters open by the State of 

Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season. 

(3) Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery permit. (i) An Amendment 80 

limited access fishery permit is required 

for an Amendment 80 QS holder to 

catch, process, and receive Amendment 

80 species assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery, or use halibut 

and crab PSC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

An Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery permit is issued annually to an 

Amendment 80 QS holder who: 

(A) Has submitted a timely and 

complete application for the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery as 

described at § 679.91(b)(4) that is 

approved by NMFS, or 

(B) Is assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery by NMFS as 

described at § 679.91(a)(3)(ii); and 

(C) Has submitted a timely and 

complete EDR for all Amendment 80 QS 

permits held by that person as described 

under § 679.94. 

(ii) An Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery permit is valid until whichever 

of the following occurs first: 

(A) Until the end of the year for which 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery permit is issued; or 

(B) Until the permit is revoked, 

suspended, or modified pursuant to 

§ 679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904. 

(iii) A legible copy of the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery permit must be 

carried onboard an Amendment 80 

vessel assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery when fishing in 

the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the 

State of Alaska for which it adopts a 

Federal fishing season. 

6. In § 679.5, paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) is 

revised; paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) are 

removed; paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) 

are redesignated as paragraphs (n)(1) 

and (n)(2), respectively; and paragraph 

(s) is added to read as follows: 

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting 

(R&R). 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) CDQ halibut. The CDQ permit 

holder, CDQ cardholder, or Registered 

Buyer must comply with the R&R 

requirements provided in paragraphs 

(g), (k), and (l)(1) through (6) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(s) Amendment 80 Program—(1) 

General. The owners and operators of 

Amendment 80 vessels must comply 

with the applicable recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of this section. 

All owners of Amendment 80 vessels 

must ensure that their designated 

representatives or employees comply 

with all applicable recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

(2) Logbook-DCPL. Operators of 

Amendment 80 vessels must use a daily 

cumulative production logbook for trawl 

gear as described in paragraph (a) of this 

section to record Amendment 80 

Program landings and production. 

(3) Check-in/check-out report, 

processors. Operators or managers of an 

Amendment 80 vessel must submit 

check-in/check-out reports as described 

in paragraph (h) of this section. 

(4) Weekly production report (WPR). 

Operators of Amendment 80 vessels that 

use a DCPL must submit a WPR as 

described in paragraph (i) of this 

section. 

(5) Product transfer report (PTR), 

processors. Operators of Amendment 80 

vessels must submit a PTR as described 

in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(6) Annual Amendment 80 

cooperative report—(i) Applicability. An 

Amendment 80 cooperative issued a CQ 

permit must submit annually to the 

Regional Administrator an Amendment 

80 cooperative report detailing the use 

of the cooperative’s CQ. 

(ii) Time limits and submittal. (A) The 

annual Amendment 80 cooperative 

report must be submitted to the 

Regional Administrator by an electronic 

data file in a NMFS-approved format; by 

fax: 907–586–7557; or by mail sent to 

the Regional Administrator, NMFS 

Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 

AK 99802–1668; and 

(B) The annual Amendment 80 

cooperative report for fishing activities 

under a CQ permit issued for the prior 

calendar year must be received by the 

Regional Administrator not later than 

1700 hours A.l.t. on March 1 of each 

year. 

(iii) Information required. The annual 

Amendment 80 cooperative report must 

include at a minimum: 

(A) The cooperative’s actual retained 

and discarded catch of CQ and GOA 

sideboard limited fisheries (if 

applicable) by statistical area and on a 

vessel-by-vessel basis; 

(B) A description of the method used 

by the cooperative to monitor fisheries 

in which cooperative vessels 

participated; and 

(C) A description of any actions taken 

by the cooperative against specific 

members in response to a member that 

exceeded the amount of CQ that the 

member was assigned to catch for the 

Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(7) Vessel monitoring system (VMS) 

requirements (see § 679.28(f)). 

7. In § 679.7, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (d)(13), (d)(14), and (d)(16); 

revise paragraph (m); and add paragraph 

(o) to read as follows: 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(m) Prohibitions specific to GRS. 

(Effective January 20, 2008). It is 

unlawful for either the owner or 

operator of a catcher/processor not 

listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) not assigned to 

an Amendment 80 cooperative and 

using trawl gear in the BSAI, or an 

Amendment 80 cooperative to: 

(1) Retain an amount of groundfish 

during a fishing year that is less than the 

amount of groundfish required to be 

retained under the GRS described at 

§ 679.27(j). 

(2) Fail to submit, submit inaccurate 

information, or intentionally submit 

false information, on any report, 

application or statement required under 

this part. 

(3) Process or discard any catch not 

weighed on a NMFS-approved scale that 

complies with the requirements of 

§ 679.28(b). Catch must not be sorted 

before it is weighed and each haul must 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52719 

be available to be sampled by an 

observer for species composition. 

(4) Process any groundfish without an 

observer sampling station that complies 

with § 679.28(d). 

(5) Combine catch from two or more 

hauls. 

(6) Receive deliveries of unsorted 

catch at any time during a fishing year 

without complying with § 679.27(j)(5), if 

the vessel is required to comply with 

§ 679.27(j)(1) at any time during the 

same fishing year. 

* * * * * 

(o) Amendment 80 Program—(1) 

Amendment 80 vessels. (i) Use any 

vessel other than an Amendment 80 

vessel to catch any amount of 

Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or 

halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 

80 sector. 

(ii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel to 

catch any amount of Amendment 80 

species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. 

(2) Amendment 80 LLP license. (i) 

Designate any vessel other than an 

Amendment 80 vessel on an 

Amendment 80 LLP license; 

(ii) Fail to designate an Amendment 

80 vessel on an Amendment 80 LLP 

license that is endorsed for groundfish 

in the Bering Sea subarea or Aleutian 

Islands subarea with a catcher/processor 

designation at all times during a 

calendar year unless that Amendment 

80 vessel has suffered an actual total 

loss, constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108. 

(3) Amendment 80 QS permit. (i) Hold 

an Amendment 80 QS permit assigned 

to an Amendment 80 vessel if that 

person does not hold an Amendment 80 

LLP license that designates that 

Amendment 80 vessel. 

(ii) Hold an Amendment 80 QS permit 

that is assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel under § 679.4(o)(1) if that person 

is not designated as the owner of that 

Amendment 80 vessel by an abstract of 

title or USCG documentation. 

(iii) Hold an Amendment 80 QS 

permit assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel if that Amendment 80 vessel has 

suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108 after October 15 in the calendar 

year following the date of that actual 

total loss, constructive total loss, or 

permanent ineligibility to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108. 

(4) Amendment 80 cooperatives. (i) 

Use an Amendment 80 vessel, 

Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 QS permit not assigned 

to an Amendment 80 cooperative for a 

calendar year to catch any Amendment 

80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative during that calendar year; 

(ii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel 

assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative for a calendar year to 

receive or process catch from any 

Amendment 80 vessel not assigned to 

that Amendment 80 cooperative for that 

calendar year. 

(iii) Catch, process, or receive 

Amendment 80 species assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative in the BSAI 

or adjacent waters open by the State of 

Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season without a copy of a valid 

Amendment 80 CQ permit onboard 

unless that Amendment 80 vessel is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

(iv) Retain an amount of groundfish 

during a fishing year that is less than the 

amount of groundfish required to be 

retained by an Amendment 80 

cooperative under the GRS described at 

§ 679.27(j). 

(v) For an Amendment 80 cooperative 

to catch any Amendment 80 species, 

crab PSC, or halibut PSC in excess of the 

CQ permit amounts assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(5) Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. (i) Use an Amendment 80 

vessel, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 QS permit not assigned 

to the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery for a calendar year to catch any 

Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or 

halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access sector during that 

calendar year; 

(ii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery for a calendar year to 

receive or process catch from any 

Amendment 80 vessel not assigned to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery for that calendar year; 

(iii) Catch, process, or receive 

Amendment 80 species assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery in 

the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the 

State of Alaska for which it adopts a 

Federal fishing season without a copy of 

a valid Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery permit onboard unless that 

Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge 

gear while directed fishing for scallops. 

(6) Catch monitoring. (i) Operate an 

Amendment 80 vessel using any gear 

but dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops or a catcher/processor not 

listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl 

gear, to catch, process, or receive fish in 

the BSAI or adjacent waters opened by 

the State of Alaska for which it adopts 

a Federal fishing season and fail to 

follow the catch monitoring 

requirements detailed at § 679.93(a), (b), 

and (c). 

(ii) Operate an Amendment 80 vessel 

using any gear but dredge gear while 

directed fishing for scallops that is 

subject to a sideboard limit detailed at 

§ 679.92(b) and (c), as applicable, in the 

GOA or adjacent waters open by the 

State of Alaska for which it adopts a 

Federal fishing season, and fail to follow 

the catch monitoring requirements 

detailed at § 679.93(a), (b), and (d). 

(7) Use caps. Exceed the use caps that 

apply under § 679.92(a). 

(8) Economic data report (EDR): Fail 

to submit a timely and complete EDR as 

described under § 679.94. 

■ 8. In § 679.20: 

■ a. Paragraph (a)(7)(ii)(A)(8) is revised; 

■ b. Paragraph (a)(7)(iii)(B) is revised. 

■ c. Paragraphs (a)(7)(v), (a)(7)(vi), 

(a)(8)(iv), and (a)(8)(v) are added; 

■ d. Paragraph (a)(8)(ii) is revised; 

■ e. Paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) are 

redesignated as paragraphs (a)(11) and 

(a)(12), respectively; 

■ f. New paragraph (a)(10) is added; 

■ g. Paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) are 

revised and paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is 

removed; and 

■ h. Paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi) 

are added. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.20 General limitations. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(8) Amendment 80 sector—13.4 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) Trawl gear sectors. The Regional 

Administrator will reallocate any 

projected unharvested amounts of 

Pacific cod TAC from the trawl catcher 

vessel or AFA trawl catcher/processor 

sectors to other trawl sectors before 

unharvested amounts are reallocated 

and apportioned to specified gear 

sectors as follows: 

(1) 83.1 percent to the hook-and-line 

catcher/processor sector, 

(2) 2.6 percent to the pot catcher/ 

processor sector, and 

(3) 14.3 percent to the greater than or 

equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA pot catcher 

vessel sector. 

* * * * * 

(v) ITAC allocation to the Amendment 

80 sector. A percentage of the Pacific 

cod TAC, after subtraction of the CDQ 

reserve, will be allocated as ITAC to the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52720 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Amendment 80 sector as described in 

Table 33 to this part. Separate 

allocations for each Amendment 80 

cooperative and the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery are described 

under § 679.91. The allocation of Pacific 

cod to the Amendment 80 sector will be 

further divided into seasonal 

apportionments as described under 

paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(A) Use of seasonal apportionments 

by Amendment 80 cooperatives. (1) The 

amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ 

permit that is assigned for use in the A 

season may be used in the B or C 

season. 

(2) The amount of Pacific cod that is 

listed on a CQ permit that is assigned 

for use in the B season may not be used 

in the A season. 

(3) The amount of Pacific cod listed 

on a CQ permit that is assigned for use 

in the C season may not be used in the 

A or B seasons. 

(B) Harvest of seasonal 

apportionments in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. (1) Pacific cod 

ITAC assigned for harvest by the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery in 

the A season may be harvested in the B 

seasons. 

(2) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for 

harvest by the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery in the B season may not 

be harvested in the A season. 

(3) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for 

harvest by the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery in the C season may not 

be harvested in the A or B seasons. 

(vi) ITAC rollover to Amendment 80 

cooperatives. If during a fishing year, 

the Regional Administrator determines 

that a portion of the Pacific cod TAC is 

unlikely to be harvested and is made 

available for reallocation to the 

Amendment 80 sector according to the 

provisions under paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of 

this section, the Regional Administrator 

may issue inseason notification in the 

Federal Register that reallocates that 

remaining amount of Pacific cod to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, according 

to the procedures established under 

§ 679.91(f). 

(8) * * * 

(ii) ITAC allocation to Amendment 80 

and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. 

The remainder of the Atka mackerel 

TAC, after subtraction of the jig gear 

allocation, CDQ reserve, and incidental 

catch allowance for the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector and vessels using 

non-trawl gear, will be allocated as 

ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI 

trawl limited access sectors. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Amendment 80 sector allocation. 

The allocation of Atka mackerel ITAC to 

the Amendment 80 sector is established 

in Table 33 to this part. The allocation 

of Atka mackerel ITAC to the 

Amendment 80 sector will be further 

divided into seasonal apportionments 

under § 679.23(e)(3), and separate 

allocations for each Amendment 80 

cooperative and the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery as described 

under § 679.91. 

(A) Use of seasonal apportionments 

by Amendment 80 cooperatives. (1) The 

amount of Atka mackerel listed on a CQ 

permit that is assigned for use in the A 

season may be used in the B season. 

(2) The amount of Atka mackerel 

listed on a CQ permit that is assigned 

for use in the B season may not be used 

in the A season. 

(B) Harvest of seasonal 

apportionments in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. (1) Atka mackerel 

ITAC assigned for harvest by the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery in 

the A season may be harvested in the B 

season. 

(2) Atka mackerel ITAC assigned for 

harvest by the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery in the B season may not 

be harvested in the A season. 

(v) BSAI trawl limited access sector 

allocation—(A) BSAI trawl limited 

access sector directed fishing allowance. 

The amount of Atka mackerel ITAC 

assigned as a directed fishing allowance 

to the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

is established in Table 33 to this part. 

(B) BSAI trawl limited access sector 

incidental catch allowance and ITAC 

rollover. If, during a fishing year, the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

a portion of the Atka mackerel 

incidental catch allowance or ITAC 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is unlikely to be harvested, 

the Regional Administrator may issue 

inseason notification in the Federal 

Register that reallocates that remaining 

amount of Atka mackerel directed 

fishing allowance to Amendment 80 

cooperatives, according to the 

procedures established under 

§ 679.91(f). 

* * * * * 

(10) Amendment 80 species except 

Pacific cod and Atka mackerel—(i) 

ITAC allocation to the Amendment 80 

and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. 

The remainder of the TACs for each 

Amendment 80 species other than Atka 

mackerel and Pacific cod, after 

subtraction of the CDQ reserve and 

incidental catch allowance for the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector and vessels 

using non-trawl gear, will be allocated 

as ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI 

trawl limited access sectors. 

(ii) Amendment 80 sector ITAC. The 

allocation of ITAC for each Amendment 

80 species other than Atka mackerel and 

Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector 

is established in Tables 33 and 34 to this 

part. The allocation of these species to 

the Amendment 80 sector will be 

further divided into separate allocations 

for each Amendment 80 cooperative and 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery as described under § 679.91. 

(iii) BSAI trawl limited access sector 

allocation—(A) BSAI trawl limited 

access sector directed fishing allowance. 

The amount of ITAC for each 

Amendment 80 species other than Atka 

mackerel and Pacific cod assigned as a 

directed fishing allowance to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector is established 

in Tables 33 and 34 to this part. 

(B) BSAI trawl limited access sector 

ITAC rollover. If, during a fishing year, 

the Regional Administrator determines 

that a portion of the incidental catch 

allowance or ITAC assigned to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector for each 

Amendment 80 species other than Atka 

mackerel and Pacific cod is unlikely to 

be harvested, the Regional 

Administrator may issue inseason 

notification in the Federal Register that 

reallocates that remaining amount to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, according 

to the procedures established under 

§ 679.91(f). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Nonspecified reserve. Fifteen 

percent of the BSAI TAC for each target 

species and the ‘‘other species’’

category, except pollock, the hook-andline and pot gear allocation for 

sablefish, and the Amendment 80 

species, is automatically placed in the 

nonspecified reserve before allocation to 

any sector. The remaining 85 percent of 

each TAC is apportioned to the initial 

TAC for each target species that 

contributed to the nonspecified reserve 

and the ‘‘other species’’ category. The 

nonspecified reserve is not designated 

by species or species group. Any 

amount of the nonspecified reserve may 

be apportioned to target species that 

contributed to the nonspecified reserve 

or the ‘‘other species’’ category, 

provided that such apportionments are 

consistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section and do not result in overfishing 

of a target species or the ‘‘other species’’

category. 

(ii) CDQ reserves—(A) Pollock CDQ 

reserves—(1) Bering Sea. In the annual 

harvest specifications required by 

paragraph (c) of this section, 10 percent 

of the Bering Sea subarea pollock TAC 

will be allocated to a CDQ reserve as a 

directed fishing allowance. 

(2) Aleutian Islands subarea and 

Bogoslof District. In the annual harvest 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52721 

specifications required by paragraph (c) 

of this section, 10 percent of the 

Aleutian Islands subarea and Bogoslof 

District pollock TACs will be allocated 

to a CDQ reserve as a directed fishing 

allowance unless the Aleutian Islands 

subarea or Bogoslof District is closed to 

directed fishing for pollock by 

regulation. If the Aleutian Islands 

subarea and/or Bogoslof District is 

closed to directed fishing for pollock by 

regulation, then no pollock CDQ reserve 

will be established for those areas and 

incidental harvest of pollock by CDQ 

groups will accrue against the incidental 

catch allowance for pollock established 

under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A)(1) of this 

section. 

(B) Fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserves. 

Twenty percent of the hook-and-line or 

pot gear allocation of sablefish 

established under paragraphs 

(a)(4)(iii)(A) and (a)(4)(iv)(A) of this 

section will be allocated to a CDQ 

reserve for each subarea. 

(C) CDQ reserves for Amendment 80 

species. An amount equal to 10.7 

percent of the BSAI TACs for Atka 

mackerel, Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean 

perch, yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead 

sole, and Pacific cod will be allocated to 

a CDQ reserve for each of these species 

by management area, subarea, or 

district. 

(D) CDQ reserves for other groundfish 

species. An amount equal to 10.7 

percent of the BSAI TACs for Bering Sea 

Greenland turbot and arrowtooth 

flounder, and 7.5 percent of the trawl 

gear allocation of sablefish in the BS 

and AI is apportioned from the 

nonspecified reserve established under 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section to a 

CDQ reserve for each of these species by 

management area, subarea, or district. 

(E) If the groundfish harvest 

specifications required by paragraph (c) 

of this section change a TAC category 

allocated to a CDQ reserve under 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of 

this section by combining or splitting a 

species, species group, or management 

area, then the same percentage of the 

TAC apportioned to a CDQ reserve in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of 

this section will apply to the new TAC 

categories. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) Amendment 80 GOA sideboard 

limits—GOA groundfish. (A) If the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

a GOA sideboard limit for a GOA 

groundfish species as described under 

Table 37 to this part is sufficient to 

support a directed fishing allowance for 

that species, the Regional Administrator 

may establish a directed fishing 

allowance for the species applicable 

only to Amendment 80 vessels subject 

to the GOA groundfish sideboard limit. 

(B) If the Regional Administrator 

determines that a GOA groundfish 

sideboard limit as described under 

Table 37 to this part is insufficient to 

support a directed fishing allowance by 

Amendment 80 vessels for that species, 

then the Regional Administrator may set 

the directed fishing allowance to zero 

for that species for Amendment 80 

vessels. 

(C) Upon determining that a GOA 

sideboard limit as described under 

Table 37 to this part for a species is or 

will be reached, the Regional 

Administrator will publish notification 

in the Federal Register prohibiting 

directed fishing for that species by the 

Amendment 80 vessels to which the 

GOA sideboard limit applies. 

(vi) Amendment 80 GOA sideboard 

limits—halibut PSC. (A) If the Regional 

Administrator determines that a GOA 

sideboard limit for halibut PSC is 

sufficient to support a directed fishery 

for a species or species group, 

management area, and season specified 

in Table 38 to this part, then the 

Regional Administrator may establish a 

halibut PSC sideboard limit for that 

species or species group, management 

area, and season applicable to the 

Amendment 80 vessels to which the 

halibut PSC limit applies. 

(B) If the Regional Administrator 

determines that a halibut PSC sideboard 

limit is insufficient to support a directed 

fishery for a species or species group, 

management area, and season as 

specified in Table 38 to this part then 

the Regional Administrator may set the 

halibut PSC sideboard limit for that 

species or species group to zero for the 

Amendment 80 vessels to which the 

halibut PSC limit applies. 

(C) Upon determining that a halibut 

PSC sideboard limit for a species or 

species group, management area, and 

season as specified in Table 38 to this 

part is or will be reached, the Regional 

Administrator will publish notification 

in the Federal Register prohibiting 

directed fishing for a specific species or 

species group by the Amendment 80 

vessels to which the halibut PSC limit 

applies as follows: 

(1) If the halibut PSC sideboard limit 

is reached for the deep-water species 

fishery as defined in 

§ 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B) for a season, then 

NMFS will close directed fishing in the 

GOA for all species in the deep-water 

species fishery except northern rockfish, 

Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf 

rockfish in the Central GOA for that 

season. 

(2) If the halibut PSC sideboard limit 

is reached for the shallow-water species 

fishery as defined in 

§ 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(A) for a season, then 

NMFS will close directed fishing in the 

GOA for all species in the shallow-water 

species fishery for that season. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 679.21, paragraphs (e)(1)(i), 

(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii) heading, (e)(3)(ii)(A), 

(e)(3)(ii)(B)(2), and (e)(3)(iv) 

introductory text are revised, and 

paragraph (e)(3)(vi) is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch 

management. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) PSQ reserve. The following 

allocations of the trawl gear PSC limits 

are made to the CDQ Program as PSQ 

reserves. The PSQ reserves are not 

apportioned by gear or fishery. 

(A) Crab PSQ. 10.7 percent of each 

PSC limit set forth in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section. 

(B) Halibut PSQ. (1) 276 mt of the 

total PSC limit set forth in paragraph 

(e)(1)(v) of this section in each year for 

2008 and 2009. 

(2) 326 mt of the total PSC limit set 

forth in paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this 

section effective in 2010 and each year 

thereafter. 

(C) Salmon PSQ—(1) Chinook 

salmon. 7.5 percent of the PSC limit set 

forth in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this 

section. 

(2) Non-Chinook salmon. 10.7 percent 

of the PSC limit set forth in paragraph 

(e)(1)(viii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) General. NMFS, after consultation 

with the Council and after subtraction of 

PSQ reserves and PSC CQ assigned to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, will 

apportion each PSC limit set forth in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) through (viii) of this 

section into bycatch allowances for 

fishery categories defined in paragraph 

(e)(3)(iv) of this section, based on each 

category’s proportional share of the 

anticipated incidental catch during a 

fishing year of prohibited species for 

which a PSC limit is specified and the 

need to optimize the amount of total 

groundfish harvested under established 

PSC limits. 

(ii) Red king crab, C. bairdi, C. opilio, 

and halibut—(A) General. For vessels 

engaged in directed fishing for 

groundfish in the BSAI, other than 

vessels fishing under a CQ permit 

assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative, the PSC limits for red king 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52722 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

crab, C. bairdi, C. opilio, and halibut 

will be apportioned to the trawl fishery 

categories defined in paragraphs 

(e)(3)(iv)(B) through (F) of this section. 

(B) * * * 

(2) When the RKCSS is open to 

vessels fishing for groundfish with 

nonpelagic trawl gear under paragraph 

(e)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, NMFS, 

after consultation with the Council, will 

specify an amount of the red king crab 

bycatch limit annually established 

under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section 

for the RKCSS. The amount of the red 

king crab bycatch limit specified for the 

RKCSS will not exceed an amount 

equivalent to 25 percent of the red king 

crab PSC allowance and will be based 

on the need to optimize the groundfish 

harvest relative to red king crab bycatch. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Trawl fishery categories. For 

purposes of apportioning trawl PSC 

limits among fisheries, other than PSC 

CQ assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative, the following fishery 

categories are specified and defined in 

terms of round-weight equivalents of 

those groundfish species or species 

groups for which a TAC has been 

specified under § 679.20. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Amendment 80 sector bycatch 

limitations. (A) Halibut and crab 

bycatch limits for the Amendment 80 

sector in the BSAI will be established 

according to the procedure and 

formulae set out in § 679.91(d) through 

(f); and 

(B) Halibut and crab PSC assigned to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery will be managed through 

directed fishing closures for 

Amendment 80 vessels to which the 

halibut and crab bycatch limits apply. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In § 679.27, paragraph (j) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 679.27 Improved Retention/Improved 

Utilization Program. 

* * * * * 

(j) Groundfish retention standard. 

(Effective January 20, 2008)—(1) 

Applicability. (i) The operator of a 

catcher/processor not listed in 

§ 679.4(1)(2)(i), not assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative, and using 

trawl gear in the BSAI must comply 

with the GRS set forth under paragraph 

(j)(4) of this section while fishing for or 

processing groundfish caught from the 

BSAI from January 1 through December 

31 of each year. 

(ii) An Amendment 80 cooperative 

and the members of an Amendment 80 

cooperative must comply with the GRS 

set forth under paragraph (j)(4) of this 

section while fishing for or processing 

groundfish caught from the BSAI from 

January 1 through December 31 of each 

year. 

(iii) No part of the GRS supersedes 

minimum retention or utilization 

requirements for IR/IU species found in 

this section. 

(2) Percent of groundfish retained 

calculation for a catcher/processor not 

in an Amendment 80 cooperative. For 

any fishing year, the percent of 

groundfish retained by each catcher/ 

processor not listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i), 

not assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative, and using trawl gear in the 

BSAI will be calculated using the 

following equations: 

GFroundweight PWspecies /PRRspecies n n

i=1

n

= ∑( )

Substituting the value for 

GFroundweight into the following 

equation: 

GFR% = (GFroundweight / TotalGF) *

100 

Where: 

GFroundweight is the total annual round 

weight equivalent of all retained product 

weights for each IR/IU groundfish 

species. 

PWspeciesn is the total annual product 

weight for each groundfish species listed 

in Table 2a to this part by product type 

as reported in the vessel’s weekly 

production report required at § 679.5(i). 

PRRspeciesn is the standard product recovery 

rate for each groundfish species and 

product combination listed in Table 3 to 

this part. 

GFR% is the groundfish retention percentage 

for a vessel calculated as GFroundweight 

divided by the total weight of groundfish 

catch. 

TotalGF is the total groundfish round catch 

weight as measured by the flow scale 

measurement, less any non-groundfish, 

PSC species or groundfish species on 

prohibited species status under § 679.20. 

(3) Percent of groundfish retained 

calculation for an Amendment 80 

cooperative. For each Amendment 80 

cooperative, for any fishing year, the 

percent of groundfish retained by that 

Amendment 80 cooperative is based on 

the aggregate groundfish retained by all 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative and will be 

calculated using the following 

equations: 

GFroundweight PWspecies /PRRspecies n n

i=1

n

= ∑( )

Substituting the value for 

GFroundweight into the following 

equation: 

GFR% = (GFroundweight / TotalGF) *

100 

Where: 

GFroundweight is the total annual round 

weight equivalent of all retained product 

weights retained by all Amendment 80 

vessels assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative for each IR/IU groundfish 

species. 

PWspeciesn is the total annual product 

weight for each groundfish species listed 

in Table 2a to this part by product type 

as reported in the vessel’s weekly 

production report for all Amendment 80 

vessels assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative required at § 679.5(i). 

PRRspeciesn is the standard product recovery 

rate for each groundfish species and 

product combination listed in Table 3 to 

this part. 

GFR% is the groundfish retention percentage 

for an Amendment 80 cooperative 

calculated as GFroundweight divided by 

the total weight of groundfish catch. 

TotalGF is the total groundfish round catch 

weight for all Amendment 80 vessels 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative as measured by the flow 

scale measurement, less any nongroundfish, PSC species or groundfish 

species on prohibited species status 

under § 679.20. 

(4) Minimum groundfish retention 

standard. An Amendment 80 

cooperative or a catcher/processor not 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER14se07.002</MATH> ER14SE07.003</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52723 

listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i), not assigned to 

an Amendment 80 cooperative, and 

using trawl gear in the BSAI must 

comply with the annual minimum 

groundfish retention standard 

requirements displayed in the following 

table: 

GROUNDFISH RETENTION STANDARD

Year Annual GRS 

(percent) 

2008 .......................................... 65 

2009 .......................................... 75 

2010 .......................................... 80 

2011 and each year after ......... 85 

(5) Monitoring requirements—(i) 

Observer coverage requirements. In 

addition to complying with minimum 

observer coverage requirements at 

§ 679.50(c), the owner of an Amendment 

80 vessel or any other catcher/processor 

not listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using 

trawl gear in the BSAI, must comply 

with observer coverage requirements as 

described at §§ 679.50(c)(6), and 

679.7(m)(3) at all times the vessel is 

used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI 

with trawl gear. 

(ii) Catch weighing. For each haul, all 

catch by an Amendment 80 vessel or 

any other catcher/processor not listed in 

§ 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in 

the BSAI must be weighed on a NMFSapproved scale and made available for 

sampling by a NMFS certified observer 

at a single location. The owner or 

operator of an Amendment 80 vessel or 

a catcher/processor not listed in 

§ 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in 

the BSAI must ensure that the vessel is 

in compliance with the scale 

requirements described at § 679.28(b), 

that each haul is weighed separately, 

and that no sorting of catch takes place 

prior to weighing. All weighed catch 

must be recorded as required at 

§ 679.5(a)(7)(iv)(C). 

(iii) Observer sampling station. The 

owner or operator of an Amendment 80 

vessel or any other catcher/processor 

not listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using 

trawl gear in the BSAI must provide an 

observer sampling station as described 

at § 679.28(d) and the owner of the 

vessel must ensure that the vessel 

operator complies with the observer 

sampling station requirements described 

at § 679.28(d) at all times the vessel is 

used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI. 

In addition to the requirements at 

§ 679.28(d)(7)(ii), observers must be able 

to sample all catch from a single point 

along the conveyer belt conveying 

unsorted catch, and when standing 

where unsorted catch is collected, the 

observer must be able to see that no 

catch has been removed between the bin 

and the location along the conveyer belt 

at which the observers collect their 

samples. 

(6) Requirements for vessels that also 

harvest groundfish outside of the BSAI. 

The operator of an Amendment 80 

vessel, or any other vessel required to 

comply with paragraph (j) of this 

section, must offload or transfer all fish 

or fish product prior to harvesting fish 

outside the BSAI, unless the operator of 

the vessel is in compliance with the 

recordkeeping and reporting and 

monitoring requirements described at 

§ 679.5(a)(7)(iv)(C) and paragraph (j)(5) 

of this section at all times the vessel 

harvests or processes groundfish outside 

the BSAI. 

(7) Requirements for vessels receiving 

deliveries of unsorted catch. The owner 

or operator of an Amendment 80 vessel, 

or any other vessel required to comply 

with this paragraph (j) at any time 

during a fishing year and who also 

receives deliveries of unsorted catch at 

any time during a fishing year must 

comply with paragraph (j)(5) of this 

section while processing deliveries of 

unsorted catch. 

■ 11. In § 679.28, paragraph (d)(8)(i) is 

revised; paragraph (h) is added and 

reserved; and paragraph (i) is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.28 Equipment and operational 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(i) How does a vessel owner arrange 

for an observer sampling station 

inspection? The owner may arrange the 

inspection time and place by submitting 

to NMFS by fax (206–526–4066) or emailing (station.inspections@noaa.gov) 

an Inspection Request for Observer 

Sampling Station available on the 

NMFS Alaska Region Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Inspections 

will be scheduled no later than 10 

working days after NMFS receives a 

complete application for an inspection. 

The owner must provide the following 

information: 

(A) Name and signature of the person 

submitting the application, and the date 

of the application. 

(B) Business mailing address, 

telephone number, and fax number of 

the person submitting the application. 

(C) Whether the vessel or processor 

has received an observer sampling scale 

inspection before and, if so, the date of 

the most recent inspection report. 

(D) Vessel name and name of contact 

person on vessel. 

(E) Federal fishery permit number. 

(F) Location of vessel where sampling 

station inspection is requested to occur, 

including street address and city. 

(G) Requested inspection date. 

(H) For catcher/processors using trawl 

gear and motherships, a diagram drawn 

to scale showing the location(s) where 

all catch will be weighed, the location 

where observers will sample unsorted 

catch, and the location of the observer 

sampling station including the observer 

sampling scale, and the name of the 

manufacturer and model of the observer 

sampling scale. 

(I) For all other vessels, a diagram 

drawn to scale showing the location(s) 

where catch comes on board the vessel, 

the location where observers will 

sample unsorted catch, the location of 

the observer sampling station, including 

the observer sampling scale, and the 

name of the manufacturer and model of 

the observer sampling scale. 

(J) For all vessels, a copy of the most 

recent scale inspection report issued 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(h) [Reserved] 

(i) Bin monitoring—(1) Bin monitoring 

standards. The vessel owner or operator 

must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this 

section unless the vessel owner or 

operator has requested, and NMFS has 

approved, one of the monitoring options 

described at paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or 

(i)(1)(iii) of this section. 

(i) Option 1—No crew in bin or tank. 

No crew may enter any bin or tank 

preceding the point where the observer 

samples unsorted catch, unless: 

(A) The flow of fish has been stopped 

between the tank and the location where 

the observer samples unsorted catch; 

(B) All catch has been cleared from all 

locations between the tank and the 

location where the observer samples 

unsorted catch; 

(C) The observer has been given 

notice that the vessel crew must enter 

the tank; and either 

(D) The observer is given the 

opportunity to observe the activities of 

the person(s) in the tank; or 

(E) The observer informs the vessel 

operator, or his designee, that all 

sampling has been completed for a 

given haul, in which case crew may 

enter a tank containing fish from that 

haul without stopping the flow of fish 

or clearing catch between the tank and 

the observer sampling station. 

(iii) Option 2—Line of sight option. 

From the observer sampling station, the 

location where the observer sorts and 

weighs samples, and the location from 

which the observer collects unsorted 

catch, an observer of average height 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52724 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(between 64 and 74 inches (140 and 160 

cm)) must be able to see all areas of the 

bin or tank where crew could be located 

preceding the point where the observer 

samples catch. If clear panels are used 

to comply with this requirement, those 

panels must be maintained sufficiently 

clear to allow an individual with normal 

vision to read text located two feet 

inside of the bin or tank. The text must 

be written in 87 point type 

(corresponding to line four on a 

standard Snellen eye chart) and the text 

must be readable from the observer 

sampling station, the location where the 

observer sorts and weighs samples, and 

the location from which the observer 

collects unsorted catch. The observer 

must be able to view the activities of 

crew in the bin from these locations. 

(iv) Option 3—Video option. A vessel 

must provide and maintain cameras, a 

monitor, and a digital video recording 

system for all areas of the bin or tank 

where crew could be located preceding 

the point where the observer collects 

catch. The vessel owner or operator 

must ensure that: 

(A) The system has sufficient data 

storage capacity to store all video data 

from an entire trip. Each frame of stored 

video data must record a time/date 

stamp in Alaska local time (A.l.t.). At a 

minimum, all periods of time when fish 

are inside the bin must be recorded and 

stored; 

(B) The system must include at least 

one external USB (1.1 or 2.0) port or 

other removable storage device 

approved by NMFS; 

(C) The system uses commercially 

available software; 

(D) Color cameras must have at a 

minimum 420 TV lines of resolution, a 

lux rating of 0.1, and auto-iris 

capabilities; 

(E) The video data must be 

maintained and made available to 

NMFS staff, or any individual 

authorized by NMFS, upon request. 

These data must be retained onboard the 

vessel for no less than 120 days after the 

beginning of a trip, unless NMFS has 

notified the vessel operator that the 

video data may be retained for less than 

this 120-day period; 

(F) The system provides sufficient 

resolution and field of view to see and 

read a text sample written in 130 point 

type (corresponding to line two of a 

standard Snellen eye chart) from any 

location within the tank where crew 

could be located; 

(G) The system is recording at a speed 

of no less than 5 frames per second at 

all times when fish are inside the tank; 

(H) A 16-bit or better color monitor, 

for viewing activities within the tank in 

real time, is provided within the 

observer sampling station (or location 

where the observer sorts and weighs 

samples, if applicable). The monitor 

must: 

(1) Have the capacity to display all 

cameras simultaneously; 

(2) Be operating at all times when fish 

are in the tank; 

(3) Be securely mounted at or near eye 

level; 

(4) Provide the same resolution as 

specified in paragraph (i)(1)(iii)(F) of 

this section. 

(I) The observer is able to view any 

earlier footage from any point in the trip 

and is assisted by crew knowledgeable 

in the operation of the system in doing 

so; 

(J) The vessel owner has, in writing, 

provided the Regional Administrator 

with the specifications of the system. At 

a minimum, this must include: 

(1) The length and width (in pixels) 

of each image; 

(2) The file type in which the data are 

recorded; 

(3) The type and extent of 

compression; 

(4) The frame rate at which the data 

will be recorded; 

(5) The brand and model number of 

the cameras used; 

(6) The brand, model, and 

specifications of the lenses used; 

(7) A scale drawing of the location of 

each camera and its coverage area; 

(8) The size and type of storage 

device; 

(9) The type, speed, and operating 

system of any computer that is part of 

the system; 

(10) The individual or company 

responsible for installing and 

maintaining the system; 

(11) The individual onboard the 

vessel responsible for maintaining the 

system and working with the observer 

on its use; and 

(12) Any additional information 

requested by the Regional 

Administrator. 

(K) Any change to the video system 

that would affect the system’s 

functionality must be submitted to, and 

approved by, the Regional 

Administrator in writing before that 

change is made. 

(v) Failure of line of sight or video 

option. If the observer determines that a 

monitoring option selected by a vessel 

owner or operator specified in 

paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or (i)(1)(iii) of this 

section fails to provide adequate 

monitoring of all areas of the bin where 

crew could be located, then the vessel 

must use the monitoring option 

specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this 

section until the observer determines 

that adequate monitoring of all areas of 

the bin where crew could be located is 

provided by the monitoring option 

selected by the vessel owner or operator. 

(2) Who must have a bin monitoring 

option inspection? A vessel owner or 

operator choosing to operate under the 

line of sight option (option 2) in 

paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section or the 

video option (option 3) in paragraph 

(i)(1)(iii) of this section must receive an 

annual bin monitoring option 

inspection. 

(3) How does a vessel owner arrange 

for a bin monitoring option inspection? 

The owner may arrange the inspection 

time and place by submitting to NMFS 

by fax (206–526–4066) or e-mail 

(station.inspections@noaa.gov) an 

Inspection Request for Bin Monitoring 

available on the NMFS Alaska Region 

Web site at (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov). 

Inspections will be scheduled no later 

than 10 working days after NMFS 

receives a complete application for an 

inspection. The owner must provide the 

following information: 

(i) Name and signature of the person 

submitting the application, and the date 

of the application; 

(ii) Business mailing address, 

telephone number, and fax number of 

the person submitting the application; 

(iii) Whether the vessel has received 

a bin monitoring option inspection 

before, and if so, the date of the most 

recent inspection report; 

(iv) Vessel name; 

(v) Federal fishery permit number; 

(vi) Location where the inspection is 

requested to occur, including street 

address and city; and 

(vii) A diagram drawn to scale 

showing the locations where all catch 

will be weighed and sorted by the 

observer, the location where unsorted 

catch will be collected, and the location 

of any video equipment or viewing 

panels or ports. 

(4) Where will bin monitoring option 

inspections be conducted? Inspections 

will be conducted on vessels tied to 

docks at Dutch Harbor, Alaska, Kodiak, 

Alaska, and in the Puget Sound area of 

Washington State. 

(5) Bin monitoring option inspection 

report. A bin monitoring option 

inspection report, valid for 12 months 

from the date it is signed by NMFS, will 

be issued to the vessel owner if the bin 

monitoring option meets the 

requirements of paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or 

(i)(1)(iii) of this section. The vessel 

owner must maintain a current bin 

option inspection report onboard the 

vessel at all times the vessel is required 

to provide an approved bin monitoring 

option under this paragraph (i)(5). The 

bin monitoring option inspection report 

must be made available to the observer, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52725 

NMFS personnel or to an authorized 

officer upon request. 

■ 12. In § 679.31: 

■ a. Remove paragraphs (a)(2), (c), and 

(f); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (b), (d), and 

(e) as paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4), 

respectively; 

■ c. In redesignated paragraph (a)(2), 

further redesignate paragraphs (1), (2), 

and (3) introductory text, and (4) as 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), 

respectively; 

■ d. In redesignated paragraph (a)(2)(iii), 

further redesignate paragraphs (i), (ii), 

(iii) and (iv) as paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A), 

(B), (C), and (D), respectively; 

■ e. Add and reserve paragraph (b); and 

■ f. Revise the section heading, the 

heading for paragraph (a) and paragraph 

(a)(1). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.31 CDQ and PSQ reserves. 

* * * * * 

(a) CDQ and PSQ reserves.—(1) 

Groundfish CDQ reserves. See 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii). 

* * * * * 

■ 13. In § 679.50, paragraphs (a), 

(c)(4)(i)(A), and paragraph (c)(6) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program. 

(a) General. Operators of vessels 

possessing a Federal fisheries permit 

under § 679.4(b)(1) and processors that 

possess a Federal processor permit 

under § 679.4(f)(1), must comply with 

this section. The owner of a fishing 

vessel or a processor subject to this part 

must ensure that the operator or 

manager complies with this section and 

is jointly and severally liable for such 

compliance. The following table 

provides a reference to the paragraphs 

in this section that contain observer 

coverage requirements for vessels, 

shoreside processors, and stationary 

floating processors participating in 

certain fishery programs or fishing in 

certain areas. Observer coverage for the 

CDQ fisheries obtained in compliance 

with paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(5) of this 

section may not be used to comply with 

observer coverage requirements for nonCDQ groundfish fisheries specified in 

this section. 

Program Catcher/ 

processors 

Catcher 

vessels Motherships 

Shoreside and 

stationary floating processors 

(1) CDQ Program .............................. (c)(4) ............................. (c)(4) ............................. (c)(4) ............................. (d)(5). 

(2) AFA pollock .................................. (c)(5)(i)(A) and (B) ........ (c)(1) through (3) ........... (c)(5)(i)(A) ...................... (d)(6). 

(3) Aleutian Islands pollock ............... (c)(5)(i)(C) ..................... (c)(1) through (3) ........... (c)(5)(i)(C) ..................... (d)(1) through (4). 

(4) Rockfish Program ........................ (c)(7)(i) .......................... (c)(7)(ii) ......................... N/A ................................ (d)(7). 

(5) Vessels fishing in the Red King 

Crab Savings Area.

(c)(1)(vii) ........................ (c)(1)(viii) ....................... N/A ................................ N/A. 

(6) Vessels fishing in the Nearshore 

Bristol Bay Trawl Closure Area.

(c)(1)(ix) ......................... (c)(1)(ix) ........................ N/A ................................ N/A. 

(7) Vessels fishing in the HLA for 

Atka mackerel.

(c)(1)(x) ......................... (c)(1)(x) ......................... N/A ................................ N/A. 

(8) Amendment 80 vessels and NonAFA trawl C/Ps fishing in the BSAI.(c)(6) ............................. N/A ................................ N/A ................................ N/A. 

(9) Vessels and processors participating in all other BSAI and GOA 

groundfish fisheries.

(c)(1) through (3), in 

GOA only.

(c)(1) through (3) ........... (c)(1) through (3) ........... (d)(1) through (4). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) CDQ groundfish fisheries 

(effective January 20, 2008)—(1) 

Catcher/processors using trawl gear. A 

catcher/processor not listed in 

§ 679.4(1)(2)(i) using trawl gear and 

groundfish CDQ fishing, except catcher/ 

processors directed fishing for pollock 

CDQ, must comply with the observer 

coverage requirements at paragraph 

(c)(6)(i) of this section and the catch 

monitoring requirements in § 679.93(c). 

(2) Motherships. A mothership that 

receives groundfish from catcher vessels 

using trawl gear and groundfish CDQ 

fishing, except catcher vessels directed 

fishing for pollock CDQ, must have at 

least two level 2 observers as described 

at paragraphs (j)(1)(v)(D) and (E) of this 

section onboard the vessel, at least one 

of whom must be endorsed as a lead 

level 2 observer. 

* * * * * 

(6) Amendment 80 vessels and nonAFA trawl catcher/processors (effective 

January 20, 2008)—(i) Amendment 80 

vessels and catcher/processors not listed 

in § 679.4(1)(2)(i) and using trawl gear 

in the BSAI. All Amendment 80 vessels 

using any gear but dredge gear while 

directed fishing for scallops and 

catcher/processors not listed in 

§ 679.4(1)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in 

the BSAI must have onboard at least two 

NMFS-certified observers for each day 

that the vessel is used to harvest, 

receive, or process groundfish in the 

BSAI or adjacent waters open by the 

State of Alaska for which it adopts a 

Federal fishing season. 

(A) Observer lead level 2 

requirements. At least one of the 

observers required under this paragraph 

(c)(6)(i) must be endorsed as a lead level 

2 observer. More than two observers are 

required if the observer workload 

restriction at paragraph (c)(6)(i)(B) of 

this section would otherwise preclude 

sampling as required. 

(B) Observer workload. The time 

required for the observer to complete 

sampling, data recording, and data 

communication duties must not exceed 

12 consecutive hours in each 24-hour 

period. 

(ii) Amendment 80 vessels in the 

GOA. Except for the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE (USCG Documentation Number 

609951), all Amendment 80 vessels, 

except when directed fishing for 

scallops using dredge gear, in the GOA 

must have onboard at least one NMFScertified observer for each day that the 

vessel is used to harvest, receive, or 

process groundfish in the GOA 

management areas or adjacent waters 

open by the State of Alaska for which 

it adopts a Federal fishing season. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. In 679.64: 

■ a. Revise section heading; 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A); 

■ c. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as 

(a)(1)(iv); 

■ d. Add paragraph (a)(1)(iii); 

■ e. Add paragraph (a)(1)(v); 

■ f. Revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3); 

■ g. Revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) heading; 

■ h. Redesignate paragraph (b)(3)(iii) as 

paragraph (b)(3)(iv); 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52726 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

■ i. Add new paragraph (b)(3)(iii); 

■ j. Revise paragraph (b)(4); and 

■ k. Add new paragraph (b)(6). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.64 Harvesting sideboard limits in 

other fisheries. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) The Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean 

perch harvest limit will be equal to the 

1996 through 1997 aggregate retained 

catch of Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean 

perch by catcher/processors listed in 

Sections 208(e)(1) through (20) and 209 

of the AFA in non-pollock target 

fisheries divided by the sum of the 

Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch 

catch in 1996 and 1997 multiplied by 

the remainder of the Aleutian Islands 

Pacific ocean perch TAC after the 

subtraction of the CDQ reserve under 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year in which 

the harvest limit will be in effect. 

* * * * * 

(iii) Flathead sole, rock sole, and 

yellowfin sole. The harvest limit for 

flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin 

sole will be equal to the 1995 through 

1997 aggregate retained catch of that 

species by catcher/processors listed in 

Sections 208(e)(1) through (e)(20) and 

209 of the AFA in non-pollock target 

fisheries divided by the sum of the catch 

of that species in 1995 through 1997 

multiplied by the remainder of the TAC 

of that species after the subtraction of 

the CDQ reserve under 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year in which 

the harvest limit will be in effect. 

(iv) Remaining groundfish species. (A) 

Except as provided for in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of this section, 

the harvest limit for each BSAI 

groundfish species or species group will 

be equal to the 1995 through 1997 

aggregate retained catch of that species 

by catcher/processors listed in Sections 

208 (e)(1) through (e)(20) and 209 of the 

AFA in non-pollock target fisheries 

divided by the sum of the catch of that 

species in 1995 through 1997 multiplied 

by the TAC of that species available for 

harvest by catcher/processors in the 

year in which the harvest limit will be 

in effect. 

(B) If the amount of a species 

calculated under paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(A) 

of this section is determined by the 

Regional Administrator to be 

insufficient to meet bycatch needs for 

AFA catcher/processors in other 

directed fisheries for groundfish, the 

Regional Administrator will prohibit 

directed fishing for that species by AFA 

catcher/processors and establish the 

sideboard amount equal to the amount 

of that species caught by AFA catcher/ 

processors incidental to directed fishing 

for other groundfish species. 

(v) Yellowfin sole sideboard limit 

exemption. AFA catcher/processors will 

not be subject to a harvest limit for 

yellowfin sole in the BSAI during a 

calendar year if the aggregate ITAC of 

yellowfin sole assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl 

limited access sector is greater than or 

equal to 125,000 metric tons. 

(2) What are the halibut and crab PSC 

sideboard limits? The halibut and crab 

PSC bycatch limits specified for catcher/ 

processors in the BSAI are listed in 

Tables 40 and 41 to this part. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) BSAI groundfish other than 

Amendment 80 species. * * * 

* * * * * 

(iii) Amendment 80 species other than 

Pacific cod. The AFA catcher vessel 

groundfish harvest limit for each 

Amendment 80 species other than BSAI 

Pacific cod will be equal to the aggregate 

retained catch of that Amendment 80 

species from 1995 through 1997 by all 

AFA catcher vessels, divided by the 

sum of the TAC available to catcher 

vessels for that species or species group 

from 1995 through 1997, and multiplied 

by the remainder of the TAC after the 

subtraction of the CDQ reserve under 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year or season 

in which the harvest limit will be in 

effect. 

(4) How will halibut and crab PSC 

limits be calculated?—(i) BSAI. The 

halibut and crab PSC bycatch limits 

specified for catcher vessels in the BSAI 

are listed in Tables 40 and 41 to this 

part. 

(ii) GOA. The AFA catcher vessel PSC 

bycatch limit for halibut in the GOA 

will be a portion of the PSC limit equal 

to the ratio of aggregate retained 

groundfish catch by AFA catcher vessels 

in each PSC target category from 1995 

through 1997 relative to the retained 

catch of all vessels in that fishery from 

1995 through 1997. 

* * * * * 

(6) Yellowfin sole sideboard limit 

exemption. AFA catcher vessels will not 

be subject to a harvest limit for 

yellowfin sole in the BSAI during a 

calendar year if the aggregate ITAC of 

yellowfin sole assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl 

limited access sector is greater than or 

equal to 125,000 metric tons. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. In § 679.84, paragraphs (c)(7) and 

(c)(9) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 679.84 Rockfish Program recordkeeping, 

permits, monitoring, and catch accounting. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) Pre-cruise meeting. The Observer 

Program Office is notified by phone at 

1–907–271–1702 at least 24 hours prior 

to departure when the vessel will be 

carrying an observer who had not 

previously been deployed on that vessel 

within the last 12 months. Subsequent 

to the vessel’s departure notification, 

but prior to departure, NMFS may 

contact the vessel to arrange for a precruise meeting. The pre-cruise meeting 

must minimally include the vessel 

operator or manager, and any observers 

assigned to the vessel. 

* * * * * 

(9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The 

vessel owner or operator must comply 

with the bin monitoring standards 

specified in § 679.28(i). 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Subpart H, consisting of §§ 679.90 

through 679.94, is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart H—Amendment 80 Program 

Sec. 

679.90 Allocation, use, and transfer of 

Amendment 80 QS permits. 

679.91 Amendment 80 Program annual 

harvester privileges. 

679.92 Amendment 80 Program use caps 

and sideboard limits. 

679.93 Amendment 80 Program 

recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, and 

catch accounting. 

679.94 Economic data report (EDR) for the 

Amendment 80 sector. 

Subpart H—Amendment 80 Program 

§ 679.90 Allocation, use, and transfer of 

Amendment 80 QS permits. 

Regulations under this subpart were 

developed by NMFS to implement the 

Amendment 80 Program. Additional 

regulations that implement specific 

portions of the Amendment 80 Program 

are set out at § 679.2 Definitions, § 679.4 

Permits, § 679.5 Recordkeeping and 

reporting (R&R), § 679.7 Prohibitions, 

§ 679.20 General limitations, § 679.21 

Prohibited species bycatch management, 

§ 679.27 Improved Retention/Improved 

Utilization Program, § 679.28 

Equipment and operational 

requirements, § 679.31 CDQ and PSQ 

reserves, § 679.50 Groundfish Observer 

Program applicable through December 

31, 2007, and § 679.64 Harvesting 

sideboard limits in other fisheries. 

(a) Issuance of Amendment 80 QS 

permits—(1) General. NMFS will issue 

an Amendment 80 QS permit to a 

person who is eligible to receive 

Amendment 80 QS units as described in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 

based on: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52727 

(i) The information contained in an 

approved application for Amendment 

80 QS as described in paragraph (b) of 

this section; 

(ii) The information contained in the 

Amendment 80 official record as 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section; 

(iii) The Amendment 80 QS permit 

allocation procedures as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section; and 

(iv) In consideration of any use caps 

as described in § 679.92(a). 

(2) Eligibility to receive an 

Amendment 80 QS permit—(i) Owner of 

an Amendment 80 vessel. A person may 

receive an Amendment 80 QS permit 

based on the legal landings of an 

Amendment 80 vessel if: 

(A) That person owns that 

Amendment 80 vessel at the time of 

application for Amendment 80 QS as 

demonstrated on an abstract of title or 

USCG documentation; 

(B) That person holds an Amendment 

80 LLP license at the time of application 

for Amendment 80 QS; 

(C) That person is a U.S. citizen; 

(D) That person submits a timely 

application for Amendment 80 QS that 

is approved by NMFS as described in 

paragraph (b) of this section; and 

(E) A person is not eligible to receive 

an Amendment 80 QS permit based on 

the legal landings of that Amendment 

80 vessel under the provisions of 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) Holder of an Amendment 80 LLP 

license. A person may receive an 

Amendment 80 QS permit based on the 

legal landings of an Amendment 80 

vessel if: 

(A) At the time of application for 

Amendment 80 QS that person holds 

the LLP license originally assigned to 

that Amendment 80 vessel and that 

Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an 

actual total loss, constructive total loss, 

or is permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108; 

(B) The actual total loss, constructive 

total loss, or permanent ineligibility of 

that Amendment 80 vessel to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108 has been clearly and 

unambiguously established and 

documented in written form in the 

application for Amendment 80 QS and 

that documentation is accepted by 

NMFS; 

(C) The express terms of a written 

contract clearly and unambiguously 

provide that the owner(s) of that 

Amendment 80 vessel transferred all 

rights and privileges to use the 

Amendment 80 legal landings from that 

Amendment 80 vessel to the person 

holding the LLP license originally 

assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel; 

(D) That person is a U.S. citizen; and 

(E) That person has submitted a 

timely application for Amendment 80 

QS that is approved by NMFS as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(b) Application for Amendment 80 

QS—(1) Submission. A person who 

wishes to receive an Amendment 80 QS 

permit must submit a timely and 

complete application for Amendment 80 

QS. Once a person submits a timely and 

complete application for Amendment 80 

QS that is approved by NMFS, an 

application for Amendment 80 QS is not 

required to be resubmitted. An 

application for Amendment 80 QS may 

only be submitted to NMFS using any 

one of the following methods: 

(i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o 

Restricted Access Management Program, 

NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668; 

(ii) Fax: 907–586–7354; or 

(iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, 

Room 713, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, 

AK 99801. 

(2) Application forms. Application 

forms are available through the internet 

on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by 

contacting NMFS at 800–304–4846, 

Option 2. 

(3) Deadline. A completed application 

for Amendment 80 QS must be received 

by NMFS no later than 1700 hours A.l.t. 

on October 15 of the year prior to the 

fishing year for which the applicant is 

applying, or if sent by U.S. mail, 

postmarked by that time. Applications 

received or postmarked after the 

deadline will not be eligible to receive 

an Amendment 80 QS permit for the 

upcoming fishing year. 

(4) Contents of application. A 

completed application must contain the 

following information: 

(i) Applicant identification. (A) The 

applicant’s name, NMFS person ID (if 

applicable), tax ID number, permanent 

business mailing address, business 

telephone number, business fax number, 

and e-mail (if available); 

(B) Indicate (YES or NO) if the 

applicant is a U.S. citizen; if YES, enter 

his or her date of birth; 

(C) Indicate (YES or NO) if the 

applicant is a U.S. corporation, 

partnership, association, or other 

business entity; if YES, enter the date of 

incorporation; 

(D) Indicate (YES or NO) if the 

applicant is a successor-in-interest to a 

deceased individual or to a nonindividual no longer in existence, if YES 

attach evidence of death or dissolution; 

(E) Indicate whether the applicant is 

applying as the owner of an 

Amendment 80 vessel or the holder of 

an LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel; 

(F) For an applicant claiming 

Amendment 80 legal landings 

associated with an Amendment 80 

vessel, enter the following information 

for each Amendment 80 vessel: USCG 

documentation number of vessel on 

which Amendment 80 legal landings 

were caught and processed, vessel 

name, ADF&G vessel registration 

number, and LLP license held by that 

person at the time of application; 

(G) If an Amendment 80 vessel has 

suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108, provide clear and unambiguous 

documentation in written form that the 

Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an 

actual total loss, constructive total loss, 

or is permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108; and 

(H) If applicable, a copy of the express 

terms of a written contract held by the 

applicant that clearly and 

unambiguously indicates that the owner 

of the Amendment 80 vessel that has 

suffered has an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to receive a 

fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 

12108 has transferred all rights and 

privileges to use Amendment 80 legal 

landings and any resulting Amendment 

80 QS or exclusive harvest privilege 

from that Amendment 80 vessel to the 

person holding the LLP license 

originally assigned to that Amendment 

80 vessel. 

(ii) Applicant signature and 

certification. The applicant must sign 

and date the application certifying that 

all information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. If the application 

is completed by a designated 

representative, then explicit 

authorization for the designated 

representative signed by the applicant 

must accompany the application. 

(5) Application evaluation. The 

Regional Administrator will evaluate 

applications received as specified in 

this paragraph (b)(5) of this section and 

compare all claims in an application 

with the information in the Amendment 

80 official record. Application claims 

that are consistent with information in 

the Amendment 80 official record will 

be approved by the Regional 

Administrator. Application claims that 

are inconsistent with the Amendment 

80 official record, unless verified by 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52728 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

documentation, will not be approved. 

An applicant who submits inconsistent 

claims, or an applicant who fails to 

submit the information specified in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section, will be 

provided a single 30-day evidentiary 

period in which to submit the specified 

information, submit evidence to verify 

his or her inconsistent claims, or submit 

a revised application with claims 

consistent with information in the 

Amendment 80 official record. An 

applicant who submits claims that are 

inconsistent with information in the 

Amendment 80 official record has the 

burden of proving that the submitted 

claims are correct. Any claims that 

remain inconsistent or that are not 

accepted after the 30-day evidentiary 

period will be denied, and the applicant 

will be notified by an IAD of his or her 

appeal rights under § 679.43. 

(6) Appeals. If an applicant is notified 

by an IAD that inconsistent claims made 

by the applicant have been denied, that 

applicant may appeal that IAD under 

the provisions described at § 679.43. 

(c) Amendment 80 official record—(1) 

Use of the Amendment 80 official 

record. The Amendment 80 official 

record will contain all information used 

by the Regional Administrator to 

determine eligibility to participate in 

the Amendment 80 Program, assign QS, 

and any other privileges or limits for the 

Amendment 80 Program. 

(2) Amendment 80 official record 

presumed to be correct. The 

Amendment 80 official record is 

presumed to be correct. An applicant to 

participate in the Amendment 80 

Program has the burden to prove 

otherwise. 

(3) Documentation is used to establish 

the amount of Amendment 80 legal 

landings. Only Amendment 80 legal 

landings as defined in § 679.2 will be 

used to assign Amendment 80 QS units 

to an Amendment 80 QS permit unless 

an Amendment 80 vessel has no 

Amendment 80 legal landings, in which 

case Amendment 80 QS units will be 

allocated to the Amendment 80 QS 

permit derived from that Amendment 

80 vessel according to the procedures 

established under paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) 

and (iv) of this section. 

(4) Assignment of Amendment 80 

legal landings. An Amendment 80 legal 

landing is assigned only to the 

Amendment 80 vessel that was used to 

make that Amendment 80 legal landing. 

(d) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS 

permit to an Amendment 80 QS 

holder—(1) Amendment 80 QS units 

derived from an Amendment 80 vessel 

and issued to an Amendment 80 QS 

holder. NMFS will assign a specific 

amount of Amendment 80 QS units to 

each Amendment 80 QS permit based 

on the Amendment 80 legal landings of 

each Amendment 80 vessel for each 

Amendment 80 species in each 

management area for that Amendment 

80 species as listed in Table 32 to this 

part, using information from the 

Amendment 80 official record according 

to the following procedures: 

(i) All Amendment 80 species. (A) For 

each Amendment 80 species, sum the 

Amendment 80 legal landings for each 

Amendment 80 vessel in all 

management areas for that Amendment 

80 species listed in Table 32 to this part 

for each calendar year from 1998 

through 2004. 

(B) Select the five calendar years that 

yield the highest amount of Amendment 

80 legal landings of that Amendment 80 

species in all management areas for that 

Amendment 80 species listed in Table 

32 to this part, including zero metric 

tons if necessary. 

(C) Sum the Amendment 80 legal 

landings of the highest five years for an 

Amendment 80 species. This yields the 

Highest Five Years for that Amendment 

80 species. 

(D) Divide the Highest Five Years for 

an Amendment 80 species in paragraph 

(d)(1)(i)(C) of this section for an 

Amendment 80 vessel by the sum of all 

Highest Five Years for all Amendment 

80 vessels for that Amendment 80 

species based on the Amendment 80 

official record for that Amendment 80 

species as presented in the following 

equation: 

Highest Five Years/S All Highest Five Years 

× 100 = Percentage of the Total. 

The result (quotient) of this equation is 

the Percentage of the Total for that 

Amendment 80 vessel for that 

Amendment 80 species. 

(ii) Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean 

perch and BSAI Pacific cod. Multiply 

the Percentage of the Total for that 

Amendment 80 vessel for Aleutian 

Islands Pacific ocean perch and BSAI 

Pacific cod as calculated in paragraph 

(d)(1)(i)(D) of this section by the 

Amendment 80 initial QS pool for 

Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch 

and BSAI Pacific cod as set forth in 

Table 32 to this part. This yields the 

number of Amendment 80 QS units for 

that Amendment 80 vessel for Aleutian 

Islands Pacific ocean perch and BSAI 

Pacific cod Pacific cod. 

(iii) BSAI rock sole and BSAI 

yellowfin sole. (A) If an Amendment 80 

vessel did not have any Amendment 80 

legal landings during 1998 through 

2004, that Amendment 80 vessel will 

receive 0.5 percent of the Percentage of 

the Total for BSAI rock sole and BSAI 

yellowfin sole as calculated in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this section. 

(B) All Amendment 80 vessels that 

did have Amendment 80 legal landings 

will have the Percentage of the Total 

assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel 

as calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of 

this section adjusted to account for the 

assignment of the Percentage of the 

Total to Amendment 80 vessels under 

paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(A) of this section 

for BSAI rock sole and BSAI yellowfin 

sole as presented in the following 

equation: 

Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 

80 vessel × (100-S Percentage of the Total 

assigned to all Amendment 80 vessels 

under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(A) of this 

section) = Adjusted Percentage of the 

Total for that Amendment 80 vessel. 

(C) Multiply the Adjusted Percentage 

of the Total for that Amendment 80 

vessel by the Amendment 80 initial QS 

pool for BSAI rock sole and BSAI 

yellowfin sole as set forth in Table 32 

to this part. This yields the number of 

Amendment 80 QS units for that 

Amendment 80 vessel for BSAI rock 

sole or BSAI yellowfin sole. 

(iv) BSAI flathead sole. (A) If an 

Amendment 80 vessel did not have any 

Amendment 80 legal landings during 

1998 through 2004, that Amendment 80 

vessel will receive 0.1 percent of the 

Percentage of the Total for BSAI 

flathead sole as calculated in paragraph 

(d)(1)(i)(D) of this section. 

(B) All Amendment 80 vessels that 

did have Amendment 80 legal landings 

during 1998 through 2004 will have the 

Percentage of the Total assigned to that 

Amendment 80 vessel as calculated in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this section 

adjusted to account for the assignment 

of the Percentage of the Total to 

Amendment 80 vessels under paragraph 

(d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section for BSAI 

flathead sole as presented in the 

following equation: 

Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 

80 vessel × (100-S Percentage of the Total 

assigned to all Amendment 80 vessels under 

paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section) = 

Adjusted Percentage of the Total for that 

Amendment 80 vessel. 

(C) Multiply the Adjusted Percentage 

of the Total for that Amendment 80 

vessel by the Amendment 80 initial QS 

pool for BSAI flathead sole as set forth 

in Table 32 to this part. This yields the 

number of Amendment 80 QS units for 

that Amendment 80 vessel for BSAI 

flathead sole. 

(v) BSAI Atka mackerel. (A) Multiply 

the Percentage of the Total for that 

Amendment 80 vessel as calculated in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this section by 

the Amendment 80 initial QS pool for 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52729 

BSAI Atka mackerel as set forth in Table 

32 to this part. This yields the number 

of Amendment 80 QS units for that 

Amendment 80 vessel for BSAI Atka 

mackerel. 

(B) If an Amendment 80 vessel is an 

Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel, 

determine the percentage of the 

Amendment 80 QS pool that is assigned 

to each Atka mackerel management area 

listed in Table 32 to this part in each 

year from 1998 through 2004 for that 

Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel 

based on the percentage of Amendment 

80 legal landings in that Atka mackerel 

management area from 1998 through 

2004 for that Amendment 80 nonmackerel vessel. 

(C) The sum of the Amendment 80 QS 

units allocated to all Amendment 80 

non-mackerel vessels is the Total 

Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS pool. 

(D) The sum of the Amendment 80 QS 

units allocated to all Amendment 80 

mackerel vessels is the Total 

Amendment 80 mackerel QS pool. 

(2) Assigning Amendment 80 QS units 

to an Amendment 80 permit. Once the 

Regional Administrator determines the 

amount of Amendment 80 QS units to 

be issued for an Amendment 80 species 

derived from an Amendment 80 vessel 

based on the criteria described in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section, NMFS will assign that amount 

of Amendment 80 QS units for each 

Amendment 80 species as an 

Amendment 80 QS permit to the 

Amendment 80 QS holder as follows: 

(i) Amendment 80 vessel owner. 

NMFS will issue an Amendment 80 QS 

permit for each Amendment 80 vessel to 

the owner of that Amendment 80 vessel 

if that person submitted a timely and 

complete Application for Amendment 

80 QS that was approved by NMFS 

under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section; 

or 

(ii) Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. 

NMFS will issue an Amendment 80 QS 

permit as an endorsement on an 

Amendment 80 LLP license to the 

holder of an LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel if 

that person submitted a timely and 

complete Application for Amendment 

80 QS that was approved by NMFS 

under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(e) Transfers of Amendment 80 QS 

permits—(1) Non-severability of 

Amendment 80 QS permits. (i) An 

Amendment 80 QS holder may not 

transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to 

another person unless all Amendment 

80 QS units for all Amendment 80 

species on that Amendment 80 QS 

permit are transferred in their entirety to 

the same person at the same time; and 

(ii) Once an Amendment 80 QS 

permit is assigned to an Amendment 80 

LLP license, that Amendment 80 LLP 

license is designated as an Amendment 

80 LLP/QS license and a person may not 

separate the Amendment 80 QS permit 

from that Amendment 80 LLP/QS 

license. 

(2) Transfer of an Amendment 80 

LLP/QS license. A person holding an 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS license may 

transfer that Amendment 80 LLP/QS 

license to another person only under the 

provisions of § 679.4(k)(7). 

(3) Transfers of Amendment 80 QS 

permits. A person holding an 

Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to 

an Amendment 80 vessel may transfer 

that Amendment 80 QS permit to 

another person only by submitting an 

application to transfer Amendment 80 

QS permit that is approved by NMFS 

under the provisions of paragraph (f) of 

this section. 

(4) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS 

permit to an Amendment 80 LLP 

license. An Amendment 80 vessel 

owner holding an Amendment 80 QS 

permit assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel may transfer that Amendment 80 

QS permit to the LLP license originally 

assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel 

only by submitting an application to 

transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit 

that is approved by NMFS under the 

provisions of paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(f) Application to transfer an 

Amendment 80 QS permit—(1) General. 

An Amendment 80 QS holder who 

wishes to transfer an Amendment 80 QS 

permit must submit a complete 

application that is approved by NMFS. 

This application may only be submitted 

to NMFS using any one of the following 

methods: 

(i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o 

Restricted Access Management Program, 

NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668; 

(ii) Fax: 907–586–7354; or 

(iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, 

Room 713, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, 

AK 99801. 

(2) Application forms. Application 

forms are available through the internet 

on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by 

contacting NMFS at 800–304–4846, 

Option 2. 

(3) Application—(i) Transferor 

information—(A) Transferor 

identification. The transferor’s name, 

NMFS person ID (if applicable), tax ID 

number, date of incorporation or date of 

birth, permanent business mailing 

address, business telephone number, fax 

number, and e-mail (if available). 

(B) Type of transfer. (1) Indicate 

whether the transferor is applying to 

transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to 

another person; or 

(2) Indicate whether the transferor is 

applying to transfer an Amendment 80 

QS permit to the LLP license originally 

assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel 

as listed in Table 31 to this part. 

(C) Amendment 80 QS permit. 

Indicate the Amendment 80 QS permit 

to be transferred. 

(D) Information for transfers of 

Amendment 80 QS permit to another 

person. If transferring an Amendment 

80 QS permit assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel owner to another 

person, attach abstract of title or USCG 

documentation that clearly and 

unambiguously indicates that the 

Amendment 80 QS permit transferee is 

named on the abstract of title or USCG 

documentation as the owner of the 

Amendment 80 vessel to which that 

Amendment 80 QS permit would be 

assigned. 

(E) Information for transfers of 

Amendment 80 QS permits to an 

Amendment 80 LLP license. If 

transferring Amendment 80 QS assigned 

to an Amendment 80 vessel owner to 

the LLP license originally assigned to 

that Amendment 80 vessel, provide 

clear and unambiguous written 

documentation that can be verified by 

NMFS that the Amendment 80 vessel 

for which that Amendment 80 LLP 

license was originally assigned is no 

longer able to be used in the 

Amendment 80 Program due to the 

actual total loss, constructive total loss, 

or permanent ineligibility of that vessel 

to receive a fishery endorsement under 

46 U.S.C. 12108. 

(F) Certification of transferor. The 

transferor must sign and date the 

application certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. If the application 

is completed by a designated 

representative, then explicit 

authorization signed by the applicant 

must accompany the application. 

(ii) Transferee information—(A) 

Transferee identification. The 

transferee’s name, NMFS person ID (if 

applicable), tax ID number, date of 

incorporation or date of birth, 

permanent business mailing address, 

business telephone number, fax number, 

and e-mail (if available). 

(B) Certification of transferee. The 

transferee must sign and date the 

application certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. If the application 

is completed by a designated 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52730 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

representative, then explicit 

authorization signed by the applicant 

must accompany the application. 

§ 679.91 Amendment 80 Program annual 

harvester privileges. 

(a) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS 

permit to an Amendment 80 cooperative 

or Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery—(1) General. (i) Each calendar 

year, each Amendment 80 QS permit, 

associated Amendment 80 vessel, and 

Amendment 80 LLP license must be 

assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery in order to use 

that Amendment 80 QS permit, 

associated Amendment 80 vessel, and 

Amendment 80 LLP license to catch, 

process, or receive Amendment 80 

species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. 

(ii) NMFS will assign an Amendment 

80 QS permit(s), associated Amendment 

80 vessel(s), and Amendment 80 LLP 

license(s) held by an Amendment 80 QS 

holder to an Amendment 80 cooperative 

if that Amendment 80 QS permit(s), 

associated Amendment 80 vessel(s), and 

Amendment 80 LLP license(s) is 

designated on an application for CQ that 

is approved by the Regional 

Administrator as described under 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(iii) NMFS will assign an Amendment 

80 QS permit(s), associated Amendment 

80 vessel(s), and Amendment 80 LLP 

license(s) held by an Amendment 80 QS 

holder to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery if that Amendment 80 QS 

permit(s), associated Amendment 80 

vessel(s), and Amendment 80 LLP 

license(s) is assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery. 

(2) Amendment 80 QS permits issued 

after issuance of CQ or ITAC. Any 

Amendment 80 QS permits, or 

Amendment 80 QS units on an 

Amendment 80 QS permit, assigned to 

an Amendment 80 QS holder after 

NMFS has issued CQ or ITAC to the 

Amendment 80 sector for a calendar 

year will not result in any additional: 

(i) CQ being issued to an Amendment 

80 cooperative if that Amendment 80 

QS holder has assigned his Amendment 

80 QS permit(s) to an Amendment 80 

cooperative for that calendar year; or 

(ii) ITAC being issued to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery if 

that Amendment 80 QS holder has 

assigned his Amendment 80 QS 

permit(s) to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery for that calendar year. 

(3) Failure to submit an application 

for an Amendment 80 fishery. (i) If an 

Amendment 80 QS permit is not 

designated on a timely and complete 

application for CQ that is approved by 

the Regional Administrator as described 

under paragraph (b) of this section, the 

Regional Administrator will not assign 

that Amendment 80 QS permit, 

associated Amendment 80 vessel, or 

Amendment 80 LLP license to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative for the 

applicable calendar year. 

(ii) The Regional Administrator will 

assign an Amendment 80 QS permit, 

associated Amendment 80 vessel, or 

Amendment 80 LLP license to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

for the applicable calendar year if that 

Amendment 80 QS permit, associated 

Amendment 80 vessel, or Amendment 

80 LLP license is designated on a timely 

and complete application for an 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery, 

or if that Amendment 80 QS permit, 

associated Amendment 80 vessel, or 

Amendment 80 LLP license is not 

designated on a timely and complete 

application for CQ that is approved by 

the Regional Administrator as described 

under paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) Application for CQ and 

Application for the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery—(1) General. An 

application for CQ or an application for 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery may only be submitted to NMFS 

using any one of the following methods: 

(i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o 

Restricted Access Management Program, 

NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668; 

(ii) Fax: 907–586–7354; or 

(iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, 

Room 713, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, 

AK 99801. 

(2) Application forms. Application 

forms are available through the internet 

on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by 

contacting NMFS at 800–304–4846, 

Option 2. 

(3) Deadline. A completed application 

must be received by NMFS no later than 

1700 hours A.l.t. on November 1 of the 

year prior to the calendar year for which 

the applicant is applying, or if sent by 

U.S. mail, the application must be 

postmarked by that time. 

(4) Application for CQ—(i) 

Amendment 80 cooperative 

identification. The Amendment 80 

cooperative’s legal name; tax ID number, 

the type of business entity under which 

the Amendment 80 cooperative is 

organized; the state in which the 

Amendment 80 cooperative is legally 

registered as a business entity; 

permanent business address; business 

telephone number; business fax number; 

e-mail address (if available); and printed 

name of the Amendment 80 

cooperative’s designated representative. 

(ii) Identification of Amendment 80 

QS permit holders and ownership 

documentation. Full name of each 

Amendment 80 cooperative member; 

NMFS person ID of each member; 

Amendment 80 QS permit number(s), 

the names of all persons, to the 

individual level, holding an ownership 

interest in the Amendment 80 QS 

permit(s) assigned to the Amendment 80 

cooperative and the percentage 

ownership each person and individual 

holds in the Amendment 80 QS 

permit(s). 

(iii) Identification of Amendment 80 

cooperative member vessels and 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses. Vessel 

name; ADF&G vessel registration 

number; USCG documentation number; 

and Amendment 80 LLP license 

number. 

(iv) Identification of vessels on which 

the CQ issued to the Amendment 80 

cooperative will be used. Vessel name, 

ADF&G vessel registration number, and 

USCG documentation number. 

(v) EDR submission. For 2009 and 

thereafter, indicate (YES or NO) whether 

each member of the Amendment 80 

cooperative has submitted a timely and 

complete EDR for each Amendment 80 

QS permit held by that person as 

required under § 679.94. 

(vi) Certification of cooperative 

authorized representative. The 

cooperative’s authorized representative 

must sign and date the application 

certifying that all information is true, 

correct, and complete to the best of his 

or her knowledge and belief. Explicit 

authorization to complete the 

application on behalf of the members of 

the cooperative must accompany the 

application. 

(vii) Copy of membership agreement 

or contract. Attach a copy of the 

membership agreement or contract that 

specifies how the Amendment 80 

cooperative intends to catch its CQ. 

(5) Application for the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery—(i) Applicant 

identification. The applicant’s name, 

NMFS Person ID (if applicable), tax ID 

number (required), permanent business 

mailing address, business telephone 

number, fax number, and e-mail (if 

available). 

(ii) Amendment 80 vessel 

identification. The name, ADF&G vessel 

registration number(s), and USCG 

documentation number(s) of the 

Amendment 80 vessel(s) owned by the 

applicant. 

(iii) Amendment 80 LLP 

identification. The Amendment 80 LLP 

license number(s) held by the applicant. 

(iv) Amendment 80 QS permit 

information. The Amendment 80 QS 

permit number(s) held by the applicant. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52731 

(v) Amendment 80 QS ownership 

documentation. The names of all 

persons, to the individual person level, 

holding an ownership interest in the 

Amendment 80 QS permit(s) held by the 

applicant and the percentage ownership 

each person and individual holds in the 

Amendment 80 QS permit(s). 

(vi) EDR submission. For 2009 and 

thereafter, indicate (YES or NO) whether 

the applicant has submitted a timely 

and complete EDR for each Amendment 

80 QS permit held by that person as 

required under § 679.94. 

(vii) Applicant signature and 

certification. The applicant must sign 

and date the application certifying that 

all information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. If the application 

is completed by a designated 

representative, then explicit 

authorization signed by the applicant 

must accompany the application. 

(c) Allocations of Amendment 80 

species—(1) General. Each calendar 

year, the Regional Administrator will 

determine the tonnage of Amendment 

80 species that will be assigned to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector and the 

Amendment 80 sector. For participants 

in the Amendment 80 sector, the 

tonnage of fish will be further assigned 

between Amendment 80 cooperatives 

and the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. 

(2) Calculation—(i) Determination of 

TAC and ITAC. NMFS will determine 

the TAC and ITAC for each Amendment 

80 species in a calendar year in the 

annual harvest specification process in 

§ 679.20. 

(ii) Annual apportionment of ITAC. 

The annual apportionment of ITAC for 

each Amendment 80 species between 

the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector in a given 

calendar year is established in Tables 33 

and 34 to this part. 

(3) Allocation of CQ to Amendment 

80 cooperatives—(i) General. The 

amount of ITAC for each Amendment 

80 species assigned to an Amendment 

80 cooperative is equal to the amount of 

Amendment 80 QS units assigned to 

that Amendment 80 cooperative by 

Amendment 80 QS holders divided by 

the total Amendment 80 QS pool 

multiplied by the Amendment 80 sector 

ITAC for that Amendment 80 species in 

that management area. Once ITAC for an 

Amendment 80 species in a 

management area is assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative, it is issued 

as CQ specific to that Amendment 80 

cooperative. 

(ii) CQ allocation for Amendment 80 

species except BSAI Atka mackerel. The 

amount of CQ for each Amendment 80 

species except BSAI Atka mackerel that 

is assigned to a Amendment 80 

cooperative is expressed algebraically as 

follows: 

CQ in a management area = [(Amendment 80 

sector ITAC in a management area) × 

(Amendment 80 QS units assigned to 

that Amendment 80 cooperative/ 

Amendment 80 QS pool)]. 

(iii) CQ allocation for BSAI Atka 

mackerel. The amount of CQ for BSAI 

Atka mackerel that is assigned to each 

Amendment 80 cooperative in each 

management area is determined by the 

following procedure: 

(A) Determine the amount of nonmackerel ITAC in each management 

area using the following equation: 

Non-mackerel ITAC in a management area = 

(Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS units 

designated for that management area/ 

Total Atka mackerel QS pool) × 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC in all 

management areas. 

(B) Determine the amount of mackerel 

ITAC in each management area using 

the following equation: 

Mackerel ITAC in a management area = 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC in that 

management area ¥ Non-mackerel ITAC 

in that management area. 

(C) Determine the amount of nonmackerel CQ assigned to the 

Amendment 80 cooperative using the 

following equation: 

Non-mackerel CQ assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative = 

(Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS units 

designated for that management area 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative/Amendment 80 nonmackerel QS pool in that management 

area) × Non-mackerel ITAC for that 

management area. 

(D) Determine the amount of mackerel 

CQ assigned to the Amendment 80 

cooperative using the following 

equation: 

Mackerel CQ in a management area = 

(Mackerel QS units assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative/Mackerel QS 

pool) × Mackerel ITAC in that 

management area. 

(E) The total amount of Atka mackerel 

CQ assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative for a management area is 

equal to the sum of paragraphs 

(c)(3)(iii)(C) and (D) of this section. 

(4) Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. The amount of ITAC in a 

management area for each Amendment 

80 species assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery is equal to the 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC remaining 

after subtracting all CQ issued to all 

Amendment 80 cooperatives for that 

Amendment 80 species in that 

management area. 

(d) Allocations of halibut PSC—(1) 

Amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. 

The amount of halibut PSC assigned to 

the Amendment 80 sector for each 

calendar year is specified in Table 35 to 

this part. That amount of halibut PSC is 

then assigned to Amendment 80 

cooperatives and the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. 

(2) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut 

PSC assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative. For each calendar year, the 

amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

assigned as CQ to an Amendment 80 

cooperative is determined by the 

following procedure: 

(i) Multiply the amount of halibut 

PSC established in Table 35 to this part 

by the percentage of the Amendment 80 

halibut PSC apportioned to each 

Amendment 80 species as established in 

Table 36 to this part. This yields the 

halibut PSC apportionment for that 

Amendment 80 species. 

(ii) For each Amendment 80 species, 

divide the amount of Amendment 80 QS 

units assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative by the Amendment 80 QS 

pool. This yields the percentage of 

Amendment 80 QS units held by that 

Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(iii) For each Amendment 80 species, 

multiply the halibut PSC apportionment 

for that Amendment 80 species 

established in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this 

section by the percentage of the 

Amendment 80 QS pool assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative for that 

Amendment 80 species established in 

paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section. This 

yields the amount of halibut PSC 

apportioned to that cooperative for that 

Amendment 80 species. 

(iv) For each Amendment 80 

cooperative, sum the results of 

paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section for 

all Amendment 80 species. This yields 

the amount of Amendment 80 halibut 

PSC assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative as CQ. 

(3) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut 

PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. The amount of 

Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery is equal to the amount of halibut 

PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 

sector specified in Table 35 to this part 

subtracting the amount of Amendment 

80 halibut PSC assigned as CQ to all 

Amendment 80 cooperatives as 

determined in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of 

this section. 

(4) Use of Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

in the Amendment 80 sector—(i) 

Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to 

a Amendment 80 cooperative. An 

amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52732 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

is assigned to the CQ permit issued to 

an Amendment 80 cooperative for use 

while fishing for all groundfish species 

in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by 

the State of Alaska for which it adopts 

a Federal fishing season. Any halibut 

PSC used by an Amendment 80 

cooperative must be deducted from the 

amount of halibut PSC CQ on its CQ 

permit. Amendment 80 halibut PSC on 

a CQ permit may only be used by the 

members of the Amendment 80 

cooperative to which it is assigned. 

Halibut PSC assigned as CQ is not 

subject to seasonal apportionment under 

§ 679.21. 

(ii) Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. An amount of 

Amendment 80 halibut PSC is assigned 

to the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery for use by all Amendment 80 

vessels in the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery while fishing for all 

groundfish species in the BSAI or 

adjacent waters open by the State of 

Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season. Any halibut PSC used by 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

must be deducted from the amount of 

halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery. Amendment 

80 halibut PSC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery is 

subject to seasonal apportionment under 

§ 679.21. 

(5) Halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. Halibut PSC 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector for groundfish fishing in 

the BSAI may only be used by the 

members of the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector unless modified by 

reallocation to Amendment 80 

cooperatives according to the 

procedures in paragraph (f) of this 

section. Halibut PSC assigned to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector is 

subject to seasonal apportionment under 

§ 679.21. 

(e) Allocations of crab PSC—(1) 

Amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. 

The amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector 

for each Amendment 80 crab PSC in a 

calendar year is specified in Table 35 to 

this part. That amount of Amendment 

80 crab PSC is then assigned to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives and the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

(2) Amount of Amendment 80 crab 

PSC assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative. For each calendar year, for 

each Amendment 80 crab PSC, the 

amount assigned as CQ to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative is 

determined by the following procedure: 

(i) Multiply the amount of an 

Amendment 80 crab PSC established in 

Table 35 to this part by the percentage 

of the Amendment 80 crab PSC 

apportioned to each Amendment 80 

species as established in Table 36 to this 

part. This yields the Amendment 80 

crab PSC apportionment for that 

Amendment 80 species. 

(ii) For each Amendment 80 species, 

divide the amount of Amendment 80 QS 

units assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative by the Amendment 80 QS 

pool. This yields the percentage of 

Amendment 80 QS units held by that 

Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(iii) For each Amendment 80 species, 

multiply the Amendment 80 crab PSC 

apportionment to that Amendment 80 

species established in paragraph (e)(2)(i) 

of this section by the percentage of the 

Amendment 80 QS pool held by an 

Amendment 80 cooperative as 

established in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 

section. This yields the amount of 

Amendment 80 crab PSC apportioned to 

that Amendment 80 cooperative for that 

Amendment 80 species. 

(iv) For each Amendment 80 crab 

PSC, sum the results of paragraph 

(e)(2)(iii) for all Amendment 80 species. 

This yields the amount of that 

Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to 

that Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(3) Amount of Amendment 80 crab 

PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. The amount of 

each Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned 

to the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery is equal to the amount of that 

Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector specified in Table 

35 to this part subtracting the amount of 

that crab PSC that has been assigned as 

CQ to all Amendment 80 cooperatives 

as determined in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of 

this section. 

(4) Use of Amendment 80 crab PSC in 

the Amendment 80 sector—(i) 

Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative. An amount 

of Amendment 80 crab PSC is assigned 

to the CQ permit issued to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative for use 

while fishing for all groundfish species 

in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by 

the State of Alaska for which it adopts 

a Federal fishing season. Any 

Amendment 80 crab PSC used by an 

Amendment 80 cooperative must be 

deducted from the amount of 

Amendment 80 crab PSC CQ on its CQ 

permit. Amendment 80 crab PSC on a 

CQ permit may only be used by the 

members of the Amendment 80 

cooperative to which it is assigned. 

Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned as CQ 

is not subject to seasonal apportionment 

under § 679.21. 

(ii) Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. An amount of 

Amendment 80 crab PSC is assigned to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery for use by all Amendment 80 

vessels in the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery while fishing for all 

groundfish species in the BSAI or 

adjacent waters open by the State of 

Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season. Any Amendment 80 crab 

PSC used by Amendment 80 vessels 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery must be deducted from 

the amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. Amendment 80 crab PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery is subject to seasonal 

apportionment under § 679.21. 

(5) Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned 

to the BSAI trawl limited access sector. 

Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector for 

groundfish fishing in the BSAI may only 

be used by the members of the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector unless 

modified by reallocation to Amendment 

80 cooperatives according to the 

procedures in paragraph (f) of this 

section. Amendment 80 crab PSC 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is subject to seasonal 

apportionment under § 679.21. 

(f) Rollover—Annual reallocation of 

an Amendment 80 species ICA or ITAC, 

crab PSC, and halibut PSC from the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives—(1) 

General. The Regional Administrator 

may reallocate a portion of an ICA or 

ITAC of an Amendment 80 species, crab 

PSC, or halibut PSC amount assigned to 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives if the 

amount assigned to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector is projected not to 

be harvested or used. Any reallocation 

will result in an amended CQ permit for 

each Amendment 80 cooperative. The 

timing of a reallocation will be at the 

discretion of the Regional 

Administrator. 

(2) Factors considered. The Regional 

Administrator may consider the 

following factors when reallocating an 

ICA, a directed fishing allowance of an 

Amendment 80 species, or crab PSC, or 

halibut PSC amounts from the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives: 

(i) The risk of biological harm to a 

groundfish species or species group; 

(ii) The risk of socioeconomic harm to 

other domestic fishery participants; 

(iii) The impact that the allocation 

might have on the socioeconomic wellbeing of Amendment 80 cooperatives; 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52733 

(iv) Current catch and PSC use in the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector; 

(v) Historic catch and PSC use in the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector; 

(vi) Harvest capacity and any stated 

intent on the future harvesting patterns 

of vessels in the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector; 

(vii) Administrative requirements to 

reissue CQ permits; and 

(viii) Any other relevant biological, 

socioeconomic, or administrative 

factors. 

(3) Rollover of Amendment 80 

species. If, during a fishing year, the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

a reallocation of a portion of the ITAC 

or ICA of an Amendment 80 species 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector to Amendment 80 

cooperatives is appropriate, the 

Regional Administrator will issue a 

revised CQ permit to reallocate that 

amount of Amendment 80 species to 

each Amendment 80 cooperative 

according to the following formula: 

Amount of additional CQ issued to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative = Amount of 

Amendment 80 species available for 

reallocation to Amendment 80 

cooperatives × (Amount of CQ for that 

Amendment 80 species initially assigned 

to that Amendment 80 cooperative / S 

CQ for that Amendment 80 species 

initially assigned to all Amendment 80 

cooperatives). 

(4) Rollover of halibut PSC. If, during 

a fishing year, the Regional 

Administrator determines that a 

reallocation of a portion of the halibut 

PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector to Amendment 80 

cooperatives is appropriate, the 

Regional Administrator will issue a 

revised CQ permit to reallocate that 

amount of halibut PSC to each 

Amendment 80 cooperative according to 

the following procedure: 

(i) Multiply the amount of the halibut 

PSC limit to be reallocated by 95 

percent (0.95). This yields the maximum 

amount of halibut PSC available for 

allocation to Amendment 80 

cooperatives; and 

(ii) Determine the halibut PSC CQ 

issued to each Amendment 80 

cooperative according to the following 

formula: 

Amount of additional CQ issued to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative = Maximum 

amount of halibut PSC available for 

reallocation to Amendment 80 

cooperatives × (Amount of halibut PSC 

CQ initially assigned to that Amendment 

80 cooperative / S halibut PSC CQ 

initially assigned to all Amendment 80 

cooperatives). 

(5) Rollover of crab PSC. If, during a 

fishing year, the Regional Administrator 

determines that a reallocation of a 

portion of a crab PSC assigned to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives is 

appropriate, the Regional Administrator 

will issue a revised CQ permit to 

reallocate that amount of crab PSC to 

each Amendment 80 cooperative 

according to the following formula: 

Amount of CQ issued to an Amendment 80 

cooperative = Amount of that crab PSC 

available for allocation to Amendment 

80 cooperatives × (Amount of that crab 

PSC CQ initially assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative / S that crab 

PSC CQ initially assigned to all 

Amendment 80 cooperatives). 

(g) CQ transfer applications—(1) 

General. An Amendment 80 cooperative 

may transfer all or part of its CQ to 

another Amendment 80 cooperative. 

Amendment 80 cooperatives may 

transfer CQ during a calendar year with 

the following restrictions: 

(i) An Amendment 80 cooperative 

may only transfer CQ to another 

Amendment 80 cooperative; 

(ii) An Amendment 80 cooperative 

may only receive CQ from another 

Amendment 80 cooperative; and 

(iii) An Amendment 80 cooperative 

receiving Amendment 80 species CQ by 

transfer must assign that Amendment 80 

species CQ to a member(s) of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative for the 

purposes of use cap calculation as 

established under § 679.92(a). 

(2) Application for CQ transfer. NMFS 

will notify the transferor and transferee 

once the application for CQ transfer has 

been received and approved. A transfer 

of CQ is not effective until approved by 

NMFS. An application for CQ transfer 

may only be submitted to NMFS using 

any one of the following methods: 

(i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o 

Restricted Access Management Program, 

NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668; 

(ii) Fax: 907–586–7354; or 

(iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, 

Room 713, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, 

AK 99801. 

(3) Application forms. Application 

forms are available through the internet 

on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by 

contacting NMFS at 800–304–4846, 

Option 2. 

(4) Contents of application. A 

completed application for CQ transfer 

requires that the following information 

be provided: 

(i) Identification of transferor. Enter 

the name, NMFS Person ID, name of 

Amendment 80 cooperative’s designated 

representative; permanent business 

mailing address, business telephone 

number, business fax number, and email address (if available) of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative transferor. 

A temporary mailing address for each 

transaction may also be provided. 

(ii) Identification of transferee. Enter 

the name, NMFS Person ID, name of 

Amendment 80 cooperative’s designated 

representative, permanent business 

mailing address, business telephone 

number, business fax number, and email address (if available) of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative transferee. 

A temporary mailing address for each 

transaction may also be provided. 

(iii) CQ to be transferred. Identify the 

type and amount of Amendment 80 

species, or Amendment 80 PSC CQ to be 

transferred, and the number of QS units 

from which this CQ is derived. 

(iv) Identification of Amendment 80 

cooperative member. Enter the name 

and NMFS Person ID of the member(s) 

of the receiving Amendment 80 

cooperative to whose use cap 

Amendment 80 species CQ will be 

assigned, and the amount of 

Amendment 80 species CQ applied to 

each member, for purposes of applying 

Amendment 80 species use caps 

established under the Amendment 80 

Program under § 679.92(a). 

(v) Certification of transferor. The 

Amendment 80 cooperative transferor’s 

designated representative must sign and 

date the application certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. The printed name 

of the Amendment 80 cooperative 

transferor’s designated representative 

must be entered. 

(vi) Certification of transferee. The 

Amendment 80 cooperative transferee’s 

designated representative must sign and 

date the application certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. The printed name 

of the Amendment 80 cooperative 

transferee’s designated representative 

must be entered. 

(5) CQ amounts applied to a member 

of an Amendment 80 cooperative. (i) 

Amendment 80 species CQ must be 

assigned to a member of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative receiving 

the CQ for purposes of use cap 

calculations. No member of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative may exceed 

the CQ use cap applicable to that 

member. 

(ii) For purposes of Amendment 80 

species CQ use cap calculations, the 

total amount of Amendment 80 species 

CQ held or used by a person is equal to 

all metric tons of Amendment 80 

species CQ derived from all 

Amendment 80 QS units on all 

Amendment 80 QS permits held by that 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52734 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

person and assigned to the Amendment 

80 cooperative and all metric tons of 

Amendment 80 species CQ assigned to 

that person by the Amendment 80 

cooperative from approved transfers. 

(iii) The amount of Amendment 80 

QS units held by a person, and CQ 

derived from those Amendment 80 QS 

units, is calculated using the individual 

and collective use cap rule established 

in § 679.92(a). 

(h) Amendment 80 cooperative—(1) 

General. This section governs the 

formation and operation of Amendment 

80 cooperatives. The regulations in this 

section apply only to Amendment 80 

cooperatives that have formed for the 

purpose of applying for and fishing with 

CQ issued annually by NMFS. Members 

of Amendment 80 cooperatives should 

consult legal counsel before 

commencing any activity if the members 

are uncertain about the legality under 

the antitrust laws of the Amendment 80 

cooperative’s proposed conduct. 

Membership in an Amendment 80 

cooperative is voluntary. No person may 

be required to join an Amendment 80 

cooperative. If a person becomes the 

owner of an Amendment 80 vessel or a 

holder of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS 

license that has been assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative, then that 

person may join that Amendment 80 

cooperative as a member upon receipt of 

that Amendment 80 vessel or 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. 

Members may leave an Amendment 80 

cooperative, but any CQ contributed by 

the Amendment 80 QS permit(s) held by 

that member will remain with that 

Amendment 80 cooperative for the 

duration of the calendar year. 

(2) Legal and organizational 

requirements. An Amendment 80 

cooperative must meet the following 

legal and organizational requirements 

before it is eligible to receive CQ: 

(i) Each Amendment 80 cooperative 

must be formed as a partnership, 

corporation, or other legal business 

entity that is registered under the laws 

of one of the 50 states or the District of 

Columbia; 

(ii) Each Amendment 80 cooperative 

must appoint an individual as the 

designated representative to act on the 

Amendment 80 cooperative’s behalf and 

to serve as a contact point for NMFS for 

questions regarding the operation of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative. The 

designated representative may be a 

member of the Amendment 80 

cooperative, or some other individual 

designated by the Amendment 80 

cooperative to act on its behalf; 

(iii) Each Amendment 80 cooperative 

must submit a timely and complete 

application for CQ; and 

(iv) Each Amendment 80 cooperative 

must meet the mandatory requirements 

established in paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) 

of this section applicable to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(3) Mandatory requirements. The 

following table describes the 

requirements to form an Amendment 80 

cooperative: 

(i) Who may join an Amendment 80 cooperative? .................................. Any Amendment 80 QS holder named on a timely and complete application for CQ for that calendar year that is approved by NMFS. Individuals who are not Amendment 80 QS holders may be employed 

by, or serve as the designated representative of an Amendment 80 

cooperative, but are not members of the Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(ii) What is the minimum number of Amendment 80 QS permits that 

must be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative to allow it to 

form? 

Any combination of at least nine Amendment 80 QS permits which 

would include Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses. 

(iii) How many Amendment 80 QS holders are required to form an 

Amendment 80 cooperative? 

At least three Amendment 80 QS holders each of whom may not have 

a ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest in any of 

the other Amendment 80 QS holders. 

(iv) Is there a minimum amount of Amendment 80 QS units that must 

be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative for it to be allowed to 

form? 

No. 

(v) What is allocated to the Amendment 80 cooperative? CQ for each Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, and halibut PSC, 

based on the amount of Amendment 80 QS units assigned to the cooperative. 

(vi) Is this CQ an exclusive catch and use privilege? Yes, the members of the Amendment 80 cooperative have an exclusive privilege to collectively catch and use this CQ, or an Amendment 80 cooperative can transfer all or a portion of this CQ to another Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(vii) Is there a period in a calendar year during which designated vessels must catch CQ? Yes, any Amendment 80 vessel designated to catch CQ for an Amendment 80 cooperative is prohibited from catching CQ during the season closure for trawl gear in the BSAI specified at § 679.23(c) unless 

regulations at § 679.23 applicable to an Amendment 80 species in 

the BSAI are more restrictive than those established in § 679.23(c), 

in which case the more restrictive regulations will apply. 

(viii) Can any vessel catch an Amendment 80 cooperative’s CQ? ......... No, only Amendment 80 vessels that are assigned to that Amendment 

80 cooperative for that calendar year in the application for CQ may 

catch and process the CQ assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(ix) Can a member of an Amendment 80 cooperative transfer CQ individually without the approval of the other members of the Amendment 80 cooperative? No, only the designated representative of the Amendment 80 cooperative, and not individual members, may transfer its CQ to another 

Amendment 80 cooperative; and only if that transfer is approved by 

NMFS as established under paragraph (g) of this section. 

(x) Are GOA sideboard limits assigned to specific persons or Amendment 80 cooperatives? No, GOA sideboard limits are not assigned to specific persons or 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. GOA sideboard limits are assigned to 

the Amendment 80 sector. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52735 

(xi) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 vessel be assigned to more than one Amendment 80 

cooperative in a calendar year? 

No, an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 vessel may be assigned to only one Amendment 80 

cooperative in a calendar year. A person holding multiple Amendment 80 QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or owning multiple Amendment 80 vessels is not required to assign all Amendment 

80 QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or Amendment 80 vessels to the same Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. 

(xii) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 vessel be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative 

and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery? 

No, an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative 

may not be assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for 

that calendar year. A person holding multiple Amendment 80 QS 

permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or owning multiple Amendment 80 vessels is not required to assign all Amendment 80 QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or Amendment 80 vessels to the 

same Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

(xiii) Which members may catch the Amendment 80 cooperative’s CQ? Use of a cooperative’s CQ permit is determined by the Amendment 80 

cooperative contract signed by its members. Any violations of this 

contract by a cooperative member may be subject to civil claims by 

other members of the Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(xiv) Does an Amendment 80 cooperative need a membership agreement or contract? Yes, an Amendment 80 cooperative must have a membership agreement or contract that specifies how the Amendment 80 cooperative 

intends to catch its CQ. A copy of this agreement or contract must 

be submitted to NMFS with the application for CQ. 

(xv) What happens if the Amendment 80 cooperative membership 

agreement or contract is modified during the fishing year? 

A copy of the amended Amendment 80 membership agreement or 

contract must be sent to NMFS in accordance with § 679.4(a)(4). 

(xvi) What happens if the Amendment 80 cooperative exceeds its CQ 

amount? 

An Amendment 80 cooperative is not authorized to catch Amendment 

80 species or use crab PSC or halibut PSC in excess of the amount 

on its CQ permit. Exceeding a CQ permit is a violation of the regulations. Each member of the Amendment 80 cooperative is jointly and 

severally liable for any violations of the Amendment 80 Program regulations while fishing under the authority of a CQ permit. This liability 

extends to any persons who are hired to catch or receive CQ assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative. Each member of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative is responsible for ensuring that all members of the cooperative comply with all regulations applicable to fishing under the Amendment 80 Program. 

(xvii) Is there a limit on how much CQ an Amendment 80 cooperative 

may hold or use? 

No, but each Amendment 80 QS holder is subject to use caps, and an 

Amendment 80 vessel may be subject to vessel use caps. See 

§ 679.92(a). 

(xviii) Is there a limit on how much CQ a vessel may catch? ................. Yes, an Amendment 80 vessel may not catch more than 20 percent of 

the aggregate Amendment 80 species ITAC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector for that calendar year. See § 679.92(a) for use cap 

provisions. 

(xix) Are there any special reporting requirements? ................................ Yes, the designated representative of the Amendment 80 cooperative 

must submit an annual Amendment 80 cooperative report as described under § 679.5(s). In addition, each member of an Amendment 80 cooperative must submit a timely and complete EDR as described under § 679.94. 

(4) Successors-in-interest. If a member 

of an Amendment 80 cooperative dies 

(in the case of an individual) or 

dissolves (in the case of a business 

entity), the CQ derived from the 

Amendment 80 QS permits assigned to 

the Amendment 80 cooperative for that 

year from that person remains under the 

control of the Amendment 80 

cooperative for the duration of that 

calendar year as specified in the 

Amendment 80 cooperative contract. 

Each Amendment 80 cooperative is free 

to establish its own internal procedures 

for admitting a successor-in-interest 

during the fishing season due to the 

death or dissolution of an Amendment 

80 cooperative member. 

§ 679.92 Amendment 80 Program use caps 

and sideboard limits. 

(a) Use caps—(1) General. Use caps 

limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS 

units and Amendment 80 species CQ 

that may be held or used by an 

Amendment 80 QS holder or 

Amendment 80 vessel. Use caps may 

not be exceeded unless the Amendment 

80 QS holder or Amendment 80 vessel 

subject to the use cap is specifically 

allowed to exceed a cap according to the 

criteria established under this paragraph 

(a) or by an operation of law. There are 

two types of use caps: Person use caps 

and vessel use caps. All Amendment 80 

QS unit use caps are based on the 

aggregate Amendment 80 species 

Amendment 80 initial QS pool set forth 

in Table 32 to this part. The use caps 

apply as follows: 

(2) Amendment 80 QS holder use 

cap—(i) QS and CQ use cap. A person 

may not individually or collectively 

hold or use more than thirty (30.0) 

percent of the aggregate Amendment 80 

QS units initially assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector and resulting CQ 

unless that person receives those 

Amendment 80 QS units on an 

Amendment 80 permit(s) based on 

Amendment 80 legal landings assigned 

to Amendment 80 vessel(s) or 

Amendment 80 LLP license(s) held by 

that Amendment 80 QS holder: 

(A) Prior to June 9, 2006; and 

(B) At the time of application for 

Amendment 80 QS. 

(ii) CQ use cap calculation. For 

purposes of calculating and applying 

the CQ use cap, a person is assigned CQ 

based on: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52736 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(A) The amount of CQ derived from 

the Amendment 80 QS units held by 

that person; and 

(B) Any CQ assigned to that person in 

an Application for CQ transfer. 

(iii) Transfer limitations. (A) An 

Amendment 80 QS holder that receives 

an initial allocation of aggregate 

Amendment 80 QS units that exceeds 

the use cap listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

of this section cannot receive any 

Amendment 80 QS permit by transfer 

unless and until that person’s holdings 

of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units 

are reduced to an amount below the use 

cap specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 

this section. 

(B) If an Amendment 80 QS holder 

that received an initial allocation of 

aggregate Amendment 80 QS units on 

his or her Amendment 80 QS permits 

that exceeds the use cap listed in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section 

transfers an Amendment 80 QS permit 

to another person, the transferor may 

not hold more than the greater of either 

the amount of Amendment 80 QS units 

held by the transferor after the transfer 

if the amount of aggregate Amendment 

80 QS units continues to exceed the use 

cap, or the amount equal to the 

Amendment 80 QS unit use cap 

established in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

(C) An Amendment 80 QS holder that 

receives an initial allocation of aggregate 

Amendment 80 QS units on his or her 

Amendment 80 QS permits that exceeds 

the use cap listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

of this section is prohibited from having 

any CQ assigned to that Amendment 80 

QS holder in an application for CQ 

transfer unless and until that 

Amendment 80 QS holder’s holdings of 

aggregate Amendment 80 QS units are 

reduced to an amount below the use cap 

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

(3) ITAC use cap for an Amendment 

80 vessel. An Amendment 80 vessel 

may not be used to catch an amount of 

Amendment 80 species greater than 

twenty (20.0) percent of the aggregate 

Amendment 80 species ITACs assigned 

to the Amendment 80 sector. This 

amount includes ITAC that is assigned 

as CQ or to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. 

(b) GOA sideboard limits—(1) GOA 

groundfish sideboard limits. 

Amendment 80 vessels may not be used 

to catch more than the amounts of 

groundfish in the management areas 

specified in Table 37 to this part from 

January 1 through December 31 of each 

year, except that GOA groundfish 

sideboard limits specified in Table 37 to 

this part do not apply when an 

Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge 

gear while directed fishing for scallops 

in the GOA. 

(2) GOA halibut PSC sideboard limits. 

All Amendment 80 vessels, other than 

the fishing vessel GOLDEN FLEECE as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, may not use halibut PSC in the 

fishery complexes, management areas, 

and seasons greater than the amounts 

specified in Table 38 to this part during 

January 1 through December 31 of each 

year; except that: 

(i) An Amendment 80 vessel that uses 

halibut PSC CQ in the Central GOA 

subject to the regulations established in 

the Rockfish Program under subpart G 

to this part is not subject to the halibut 

PSC sideboard limits in Table 38 to this 

part while fishing under a Rockfish CQ 

permit; and 

(ii) Halibut PSC sideboard limits in 

Table 38 to this part do not apply when 

an Amendment 80 vessel is using 

dredge gear while directed fishing for 

scallops in the GOA. 

(c) Sideboard restrictions applicable 

to Amendment 80 vessels directed 

fishing for flatfish in the GOA. Only an 

Amendment 80 vessel listed in column 

A of Table 39 to this part may be used 

to fish in the directed arrowtooth 

flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead 

sole, rex sole, and shallow-water flatfish 

fisheries in the GOA and in adjacent 

waters open by the State of Alaska for 

which it adopts a Federal fishing 

season. 

(d) Sideboard restrictions applicable 

to the fishing vessel GOLDEN FLEECE. 

(1) The fishing vessel GOLDEN FLEECE 

(USCG documentation number 609951): 

(i) May not be used for directed 

groundfish fishing for northern rockfish, 

pelagic shelf rockfish, pollock, Pacific 

cod, or Pacific ocean perch in the GOA 

and in adjacent waters open by the State 

of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season; and 

(ii) Is not subject to halibut PSC 

sideboard limits as described in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section in the 

GOA or adjacent waters open by the 

State of Alaska for which it adopts a 

Federal fishing season. 

§ 679.93 Amendment 80 Program 

recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, and 

catch accounting. 

(a) Recordkeeping and reporting. See 

§ 679.5(s). 

(b) Permits. See § 679.4(o). 

(c) Catch monitoring requirements for 

Amendment 80 vessels and catcher/ 

processors not listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) 

using trawl gear and fishing in the BSAI. 

The requirements under paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (9) of this section apply 

to all Amendment 80 vessels except 

Amendment 80 vessels using dredge 

gear while directed fishing for scallops, 

and any other catcher/processor not 

listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl gear 

and fishing or receiving fish in the BSAI 

and in adjacent waters open by the State 

of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season. Except when using 

dredge gear while directed fishing for 

scallops, at all times when an 

Amendment 80 vessel or a catcher/ 

processor not listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) 

using trawl gear has BSAI groundfish 

onboard the vessel, the vessel owner or 

operator must ensure that: 

(1) Catch weighing. All groundfish are 

weighed on a NMFS-approved scale in 

compliance with the scale requirements 

at § 679.28(b). Each haul must be 

weighed separately and all catch must 

be made available for sampling by a 

NMFS-certified observer. 

(2) Observer sampling station. An 

observer sampling station meeting the 

requirements at § 679.28(d) is available 

at all times. 

(3) Observer coverage requirements. 

The vessel is in compliance with the 

observer coverage requirements 

described at § 679.50(c)(6). 

(4) Operational line. The vessel has 

no more than one operational line or 

other conveyance for the mechanized 

movement of catch between the scale 

used to weigh total catch and the 

location where the observer collects 

species composition samples. 

(5) Fish on deck. No fish are allowed 

to remain on deck unless an observer is 

present, except for fish inside the 

codend and fish accidentally spilled 

from the codend during hauling and 

dumping. Fish accidentally spilled from 

the codend must be moved to the fish 

bin. 

(6) Sample storage. There is sufficient 

space to accommodate a minimum of 10 

observer sampling baskets. This space 

must be within or adjacent to the 

observer sample station. 

(7) Pre-cruise meeting. The Observer 

Program Office is notified by phone at 

1–907–271–1702 at least 24 hours prior 

to departure when the vessel will be 

carrying an observer who has not 

previously been deployed on that vessel 

within the last 12 months. Subsequent 

to the vessel’s departure notification, 

but prior to departure, NMFS may 

contact the vessel to arrange for a precruise meeting. The pre-cruise meeting 

must minimally include the vessel 

operator or manager, and any observers 

assigned to the vessel. 

(8) Belt and flow operations. The 

vessel operator stops the flow of fish 

and clears all belts between the bin 

doors and the area where the observer 

collects samples of unsorted catch when 

requested to do so by the observer. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52737 

(9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The 

vessel owner or operator must comply 

with the bin monitoring standards 

specified in § 679.28(i). 

(d) Catch monitoring requirements for 

Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the 

GOA. The requirements under this 

section apply to any Amendment 80 

vessel fishing in the GOA and in 

adjacent waters open by the State of 

Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season except Amendment 80 

vessels using dredge gear while directed 

fishing for scallops. At all times when 

an Amendment 80 vessel is not using 

dredge gear while directed fishing for 

scallops and has GOA groundfish 

onboard the vessel owner or operator 

must ensure that: 

(1) Catch from an individual haul is 

not mixed with catch from another haul 

prior to sampling by a NMFS-certified 

observer, and all catch is made available 

for sampling by a NMFS-certified 

observer; 

(2) The vessel is in compliance with 

the observer coverage requirements 

described at § 679.50(c)(6)(ii); 

(3) Operational Line. The vessel has 

no more than one operational line or 

other conveyance for the mechanized 

movement of catch at the location where 

the observer collects species 

composition samples; and 

(4) The requirements in § 679.93(c)(5), 

(8), and (9) are met. 

(e) Catch accounting—(1) Amendment 

80 species—(i) Amendment 80 

cooperative. All Amendment 80 species 

caught in the BSAI, including catch in 

adjacent waters open by the State of 

Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season, by an Amendment 80 

vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative will be debited from the CQ 

permit for that Amendment 80 

cooperative for that calendar year unless 

that Amendment 80 vessel is using 

dredge gear while directed fishing for 

scallops. 

(ii) Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. All Amendment 80 species 

caught in the BSAI, including catch in 

adjacent waters open by the State of 

Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season, by an Amendment 80 

vessel assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery will be debited 

against the ITAC for that Amendment 80 

species in the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery for that calendar year 

unless that Amendment 80 vessel is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

(2) Crab PSC and halibut PSC—(i) 

Amendment 80 cooperative. All crab 

PSC or halibut PSC used by an 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative in the BSAI, 

including crab PSC or halibut PSC used 

in the adjacent waters open by the State 

of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season, will be debited against 

the CQ permit for that Amendment 80 

cooperative for that calendar year unless 

that Amendment 80 vessel is using 

dredge gear while directed fishing for 

scallops. 

(ii) Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. All crab PSC or halibut PSC 

used by an Amendment 80 vessel 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery in the BSAI, including 

crab PSC or halibut PSC used in the 

adjacent waters open by the State of 

Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season, will be debited against 

the crab PSC or halibut PSC limit 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery for that calendar year, 

unless that Amendment 80 vessels is 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

(3) GOA groundfish sideboard limits. 

All Amendment 80 sideboard species 

defined in Table 37 to this part caught 

in the GOA, including catch in adjacent 

waters open by the State of Alaska for 

which it adopts a Federal fishing 

season, by an Amendment 80 vessel will 

be debited against the Amendment 80 

sideboard limit for that Amendment 80 

sideboard species for that calendar year 

except Amendment 80 sideboard 

species caught by Amendment 80 vessel 

using dredge gear while directed fishing 

for scallops. 

(4) GOA halibut sideboard limits. All 

halibut PSC used by all Amendment 80 

vessels in the GOA, including halibut 

PSC used in the adjacent waters open by 

the State of Alaska for which it adopts 

a Federal fishing season, will be debited 

against the sideboard limit established 

for the Amendment 80 sector, except: 

(i) Halibut PSC CQ used by the 

catcher/processor sector in the Rockfish 

Program in the Central GOA; 

(ii) Halibut PSC used by the fishing 

vessel GOLDEN FLEECE (USCG 

Documentation number 609951); and 

(iii) Halibut PSC used by an 

Amendment 80 vessel using dredge gear 

while directed fishing for scallops. 

§ 679.94 Economic data report (EDR) for 

the Amendment 80 sector. 

(a) Amendment 80 EDR—(1) 

Requirement to submit an EDR. Each 

year except 2008, a person who held an 

Amendment 80 QS permit during a 

calendar year must submit to NMFS an 

EDR for that calendar year for each 

Amendment 80 QS permit held by that 

person. An EDR must be timely and 

complete. 

(2) Submission of EDR. An EDR may 

only be submitted to NMFS using any 

one of the following methods: 

(i) Mail: NMFS, Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, Economic Data Reports, 

7600 Sand Point Way NE, F/AKC2, 

Seattle, WA 98115; or 

(ii) Fax: 206–526–6723 

(3) EDR forms. EDR forms are 

available through the Internet on the 

NMFS Alaska Region Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by 

contacting NMFS at 206–526–6414. 

(4) Deadline. For each calendar year 

except 2008, a completed EDR must be 

received by NMFS no later than 1700 

hours A.l.t. on June 1 of the year 

following the calendar year during 

which the Amendment 80 QS permit 

was held, or if sent by U.S. mail, 

postmarked by that date. 

(5) Contents of EDR. An EDR must 

contain completed submissions for each 

data field required under paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section, as applicable, 

and the following information: 

(i) Calendar year of EDR. Calendar 

year for which the EDR is being 

submitted; 

(ii) Amendment 80 QS holder 

information. Name of company, 

partnership, other business entity, 

business telephone number, business 

fax number, e-mail address (if available) 

and Amendment 80 QS permits held; 

(iii) Designated representative. An 

Amendment 80 QS holder must appoint 

an individual to be his designated 

representative and must ensure that the 

designated representative complies with 

the regulations in this section. The 

designated representative is the primary 

contact person for NMFS on issues 

relating to data required in the EDR. If 

an individual Amendment 80 QS holder 

chooses to complete the EDR, then they 

are the designated representative; 

(iv) Person completing this report. (A) 

Indicate whether the person completing 

this report is the Amendment 80 QS 

holder, or the designated representative 

for the Amendment 80 QS holder; 

(B) Record the name of the person 

completing the report, title, business 

telephone number, fax number, 

signature of the person submitting the 

EDR, and e-mail address (if available). If 

a designated representative is not the 

Amendment 80 QS holder, written 

authorization to act on behalf of the 

Amendment 80 QS holder must 

accompany the EDR; 

(v) Amendment 80 QS holders who 

own Amendment 80 vessels. An 

Amendment 80 QS holder who is an 

Amendment 80 vessel owner must 

submit, or have his designated 

representative submit, revenue and cost 

information for each Amendment 80 QS 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52738 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

permit held and each Amendment 80 

vessel owned by that Amendment 80 QS 

holder as described under paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of this section; 

(vi) Amendment 80 QS holders who 

do not own Amendment 80 vessels. An 

Amendment 80 QS holder who is not an 

Amendment 80 vessel owner must 

submit, or have his designated 

representative submit, revenue and cost 

information for each Amendment 80 QS 

permit held by that Amendment 80 QS 

holder as described under paragraph (c) 

of this section; and 

(vii) Certification. The Amendment 80 

QS holder and his designated 

representative, if applicable, must 

certify that all information provided 

under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section is accurate and complete. 

(b) Amendment 80 vessel 

information—(1) Ownership of an 

Amendment 80 vessel. If a person 

owned any part of an Amendment 80 

vessel during a calendar year, that 

person must provide the following 

information for each Amendment 80 

vessel owned: 

(i) Amendment 80 vessel owner 

information. Vessel name, USCG 

Documentation number, ADF&G vessel 

registration number, ADF&G processor 

code, Amendment 80 LLP license 

number(s) which designated that vessel 

during that calendar year, Amendment 

80 QS permit assigned to that vessel 

during that calendar year, Amendment 

80 limited access fishery permit number 

assigned to that vessel during that 

calendar year, or name of Amendment 

80 cooperative to which that 

Amendment 80 vessel was assigned 

during that calendar year (if applicable); 

(ii) Amendment 80 vessel operator 

information. If a person other than the 

Amendment 80 QS holder operated an 

Amendment 80 vessel owned by that 

Amendment 80 QS holder during a 

calendar year, provide the following: 

Name of company, partnership, other 

business entity, and business telephone 

number, business fax number, and email address (if available); 

(2) Vessel characteristics. (i) Home 

port, U.S. gross registered tonnage, net 

tonnage, length overall, beam, shaft 

horsepower, fuel capacity, year built; 

(ii) Vessel survey value: most recent 

survey value, date of last survey value, 

did survey reflect value of permits and 

processing equipment; 

(iii) Freezing capacity: maximum 

freezing capacity of this vessel in 

pounds per hour and freezer space 

(measured in pounds of product); 

(iv) Fuel consumption: total 

consumption for the calendar year and 

average fuel consumed per hour from 

fishing and processing, transiting, and 

in shipyard. 

(v) Vessel activity during calendar 

year: number of days the vessel was 

engaged in fishing, processing, steaming 

empty, offloading, and inactive or in 

shipyard. Report separately for 

Amendment 80 fisheries and all other 

fisheries; and 

(vi) Processing capacity: Record each 

type of product processed on the line in 

the Amendment 80 fishery, the number 

of processing lines of similar type 

(equipment and/or product mix), and 

the vessel’s maximum average 

throughput in pounds (round weight) 

per hour under normal operating 

conditions (assuming quantity of raw 

fish and other inputs is not limiting), 

totaled over all processing lines of this 

type. 

(3) Calendar year revenues. 

(i) Total fishery product sales volume 

and FOB Alaska revenue; and 

(ii) All other income derived from 

vessel operations: tendering, charters, 

cargo transport, etc. 

(4) Calendar year costs. (i) Fishing 

labor expenses (including bonuses and 

payroll taxes, but excluding benefits and 

insurance); 

(ii) Processing labor expenses 

(including bonuses and payroll taxes, 

but excluding benefits and insurance); 

(iii) Labor expenses for all other 

employees aboard the vessel; 

(iv) Food and provisions not paid by 

crew; 

(v) Recruitment, travel, benefits, and 

other employee related costs; 

(vi) Lease expense for this vessel and 

onboard equipment; 

(vii) Purchases of fishing gear (nets, 

net electronics, doors, cables, etc.); 

(viii) Expenditures on processing 

equipment; 

(ix) Product storage equipment; 

(x) Expenditures on vessel and 

onboard equipment (other than fishing, 

processing, or storage equipment); 

(xi) Fishing gear leases; 

(xii) Repair and maintenance 

expenses for vessel and processing 

equipment; 

(xiii) Freight storage and other sales 

costs; 

(xiv) Product packaging materials; 

(xv) Fuel and lubrication; 

(xvi) Observer fees and monitoring 

costs; 

(xvii) General administrative costs; 

(xviii) Insurance; 

(xix) Fisheries landing taxes; 

(xx) Total raw fish purchases; and 

(xxi) All other costs related to vessel 

operations not included in the 

preceding list. 

(5) Calendar year labor. Average 

number and total number of employees 

for fishing, processing, and other 

activities on this vessel. 

(i) Average number of hours worked 

per day by processing line employee; 

and 

(ii) Crew revenue share system used 

for some processing, all processing, 

some non-processing, and all nonprocessing crew. 

(c) Permit revenues or expenditures. 

An Amendment 80 QS holder or his 

designated representative will record 

revenues and expenditures for any 

tradable fishing or processing privilege. 

Attribute those revenues or costs to a 

specific Amendment 80 vessel or 

Amendment 80 LLP as applicable. 

(1) Permit revenues. (i) Income from 

sale or lease of fishery licenses, permits, 

harvesting or processing rights: record 

license or permit number and revenue 

for each asset sold; and 

(ii) Royalties received from leasing 

allocations including metric tons and 

dollars for Amendment 80 yellowfin 

sole, rock sole, flathead sole, Atka 

mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, Pacific 

cod, Amendment 80 leased halibut PSC, 

leased crab PSC, and any other species 

leased. 

(2) Permit expenditures. (i) Fishery 

licenses, permits, harvesting or 

processing rights: record license or 

permit number and cost for each asset 

purchased; 

(ii) Royalties paid for leases of 

catcher/processing quota, including 

metric tons, and dollars for Amendment 

80 yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead 

sole, Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean 

perch, Pacific cod, Amendment 80 

leased halibut PSC, leased king crab 

PSC, and any other species leased; 

(iii) Cooperative costs including 

lawyer and accountant costs, association 

fees, and other fees charged by harvest 

cooperative; and 

(iv) Any other costs incurred from the 

use of fishery licenses, permits, 

harvesting or processing rights not 

included in the preceding list. 

(d) EDR audit procedures. (1) NMFS 

will conduct verification of information 

with the Amendment 80 QS holder or 

designated representative, if applicable. 

(2) The Amendment 80 QS holder or 

designated representative, if applicable, 

must respond to inquiries by NMFS 

within 20 days of the date of issuance 

of the inquiry. 

(3) The Amendment 80 QS holder or 

designated representative, if applicable, 

must provide copies of additional data 

to facilitate verification by NMFS. The 

NMFS auditor may review and request 

copies of additional data provided by 

the Amendment 80 QS holder or 

designated representative, including but 

not limited to, previously audited or 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52739 

reviewed financial statements, 

worksheets, tax returns, invoices, 

receipts, and other original documents 

substantiating the data submitted. 

■ 17. Tables 31 through 41 are added to 

part 679 to read as follows: 

TABLE 31 TO PART 679—LIST OF AMENDMENT 80 VESSELS AND LLP LICENSES ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO AN

AMENDMENT 80 VESSEL

Column A: 

Name of amendment 80 vessel 

Column B: 

USCG 

Documentation 

No. 

Column C: 

LLP license 

number originally 

assigned to the 

Amendment 80 

vessel 

ALASKA JURIS ........................................................................................................................................... 569276 LLG 2082 

ALASKA RANGER ...................................................................................................................................... 550138 LLG 2118 

ALASKA SPIRIT .......................................................................................................................................... 554913 LLG 3043 

ALASKA VOYAGER .................................................................................................................................... 536484 LLG 2084 

ALASKA VICTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 569752 LLG 2080 

ALASKA WARRIOR .................................................................................................................................... 590350 LLG 2083 

ALLIANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 622750 LLG 2905 

AMERICAN NO I ......................................................................................................................................... 610654 LLG 2028 

ARCTIC ROSE ............................................................................................................................................ 931446 LLG 3895 

ARICA .......................................................................................................................................................... 550139 LLG 2429 

BERING ENTERPRISE ............................................................................................................................... 610869 LLG 3744 

CAPE HORN ............................................................................................................................................... 653806 LLG 2432 

CONSTELLATION ....................................................................................................................................... 640364 LLG 1147 

DEFENDER ................................................................................................................................................. 665983 LLG 3217 

ENTERPRISE .............................................................................................................................................. 657383 1 LLG 4831 

GOLDEN FLEECE ....................................................................................................................................... 609951 LLG 2524 

HARVESTER ENTERPRISE ....................................................................................................................... 584902 LLG 3741 

LEGACY ...................................................................................................................................................... 664882 LLG 3714 

OCEAN ALASKA ......................................................................................................................................... 623210 LLG 4360 

OCEAN PEACE ........................................................................................................................................... 677399 LLG 2138 

PROSPERITY .............................................................................................................................................. 615485 LLG 1802 

REBECCA IRENE ....................................................................................................................................... 697637 LLG 3958 

SEAFISHER ................................................................................................................................................. 575587 LLG 2014 

SEAFREEZE ALASKA ................................................................................................................................ 517242 LLG 4692 

TREMONT ................................................................................................................................................... 529154 LLG 2785 

U.S. INTREPID ............................................................................................................................................ 604439 LLG 3662 

UNIMAK ....................................................................................................................................................... 637693 LLG 3957 

VAERDAL .................................................................................................................................................... 611225 LLG 1402 

1 LLG 4831 is the LLP license originally assigned to the F/V ENTERPRISE, USCG Documentation Number 657383 for all relevant purposes of 

this part. 

TABLE 32 TO PART 679.—AMENDMENT 80 INITIAL QS POOL

Amendment 80 species Management area Amendment 80 initial QS pool in units 

Atka mackerel ............................................................. BS/541 ...........................................

542 .................................................

543 .................................................

S Highest Five Years in metric tons in the Amendment 80 official record as of December 31, 2007, 

for that Amendment 80 species in that management area. 

AI Pacific ocean perch ................................................ 541 .................................................

542 .................................................

543.

Flathead sole ............................................................... BSAI.

Pacific cod ................................................................... BSAI.

Rock sole .................................................................... BSAI.

Yellowfin sole .............................................................. BSAI.


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52740 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 33 TO PART 679.—ANNUAL APPORTION OF AMENDMENT 80 SPECIES ITAC BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 AND

BSAI TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS (EXCEPT YELLOWFIN SOLE) 

Fishery Management area Year 

Percentage 

of ITAC allocated to 

the Amendment 80 

sector 

Percentage 

of ITAC allocated to 

the BSAI 

trawl limited 

access 

sector 

Atka Mackerel ................................... 543 .................................................... All years ............................................ 100 0 

542 .................................................... 2008 .................................................. 98 2 

2009 .................................................. 96 4 

2010 .................................................. 94 6 

2011 .................................................. 93 8 

2012 and all future years ................. 90 10 

541/EBS ............................................ 2008 .................................................. 98 2 

2009 .................................................. 96 4 

2010 .................................................. 94 6 

2011 .................................................. 92 8 

2012 and all future years ................. 90 10 

Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch 543 .................................................... All years ............................................ 98 2 

542 .................................................... 2008 .................................................. 95 5 

2009 and all future years ................. 90 10 

541 .................................................... 2008 .................................................. 95 5 

Pacific cod ......................................... BSAI .................................................. All years ............................................ 13.4 N/A 

Rock sole .......................................... BSAI .................................................. All years ............................................ 100 0 

Flathead sole ..................................... BSAI .................................................. All years ............................................ 100 0 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52741 

TABLE 34 TO PART 679.—ANNUAL APPORTIONMENT OF BSAI YELLOWFIN SOLE BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI 

TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS

Row No. 

If the yellowfin 

sole ITAC is between . . . and . . . 

then the yellowfin sole 

ITAC rate for 

the Amendment 80 sector is . . . 

and the amount of yellowfin sole 

ITAC allocated to Amendment 80 

Sector is . . . 

and the amount of yellowfin sole ITAC allocated 

to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is . . . 

Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E 

Row 1 .................... 0 mt ..................... 87,499 mt ............ 0 .93 ITAC × Row 1, Column C ................ ITAC—Row 1, Column E. 

Row 2 .................... 87,500 mt ............ 94,999 mt ............ 0 .875 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

87,499 mt and less than 95,000 

mt × Row 2, Column C) + Row 1, 

Column D.

ITAC—Row 2, Column D. 

Row 3 .................... 95,000 mt ............ 102,499 mt .......... 0 .82 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

94,999 mt and less than 102,500 

mt × Row 3, Column C) + Column D, Row 2.

ITAC—Row 3, Column D. 

Row 4 .................... 102,500 mt .......... 109,999 mt .......... 0 .765 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

102,499 mt and less than 

110,000 mt × Row 4, Column C) 

+ Column D, Row 3.

ITAC—Row 4, Column D. 

Row 5 .................... 110,000 mt .......... 117,499 mt .......... 0 .71 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

109,999 mt and less than 

117,500 mt × Row 5, Column C) 

+ Column D, Row 4.

ITAC—Row 5, Column D. 

Row 6 .................... 117,500 mt .......... 124,999 mt .......... 0 .655 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

117,499 mt and less than 

125,000 mt × Row 6, Column C) 

+ Column D, Row 5).

ITAC—Row 6, Column D. 

Row 7 .................... 125,000 mt and greater 0 .6 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

124,999 mt × Row 7, Column C) 

+ Column D, Row 6.

ITAC—Row 7, Column D. 

TABLE 35 TO PART 679.—APPORTIONMENT OF CRAB PSC AND HALIBUT PSC BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI 

TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS

Fishery Year 

Halibut PSC 

limit in the 

BSAI 

Zone 1 Red 

king crab 

PSC limit 

. . . 

C. opilio 

crab PSC 

limit 

(COBLZ) 

. . . 

Zone 1 C. 

bairdi crab 

PSC limit 

. . . 

Zone 2 C. 

bairdi crab 

PSC limit 

. . . 

as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit after 

allocation as PSQ 

Amendment 80 sector ...................................................... 2008 2,525 mt 62.48 61.44 52.64 29.59 

2009 2,475 mt 59.36 58.37 50.01 28.11 

2010 2,425 mt 56.23 55.3 47.38 26.63 

2011 2,375 mt 53.11 52.22 44.74 25.15 

2012 and all 

future years 

2,325 mt 49.98 49.15 42.11 23.67 

BSAI trawl limited access ................................................ All years 875 mt 30.58 32.14 46.99 46.81 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
52742 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 36 TO PART 679.—PERCENTAGE OF CRAB AND HALIBUT PSC LIMIT ASSIGNED TO EACH AMENDMENT 80 SPECIES

For the following PSC 

species . . . 

The percentage of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit assigned to each Amendment 80 species is . . . 

Atka mackerel AI Pacific ocean 

perch Pacific cod Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole 

Halibut .............................. 3.96 1.87 24.79 13.47 24.19 31.72 

Zone 1 Red king crab ...... 0.14% 0.56% 6.88% 0.48% 61.79% 30.16% 

C. opilio crab (COBLZ) .... 0% 0.06% 6.28% 17.91% 9.84% 65.91% 

Zone 1 C. bairdi crab ....... 0% 0% 17.01% 3.13% 56.15% 23.71% 

Zone 2 C. bairdi crab ....... 0.01% 0.03% 7.92% 37.31% 7.03% 47.70% 

TABLE 37 TO PART 679.—GOA AMENDMENT 80 SIDEBOARD LIMIT FOR GROUNDFISH FOR THE AMENDMENT 80 SECTOR

In the following management areas in the GOA and 

in adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for 

which it adopts a Federal fishing season . . . 

The sideboard limit for . . . Is . . . 

Area 610 ...................................................................... Pollock ........................................... 0.3% of the TAC. 

Area 620 ...................................................................... Pollock ........................................... 0.2% of the TAC. 

Area 630 ...................................................................... Pollock ........................................... 0.2% of the TAC. 

Area 640 ...................................................................... Pollock ........................................... 0.2% of the TAC. 

West Yakutat District ................................................... Pacific cod ..................................... 3.4% of the TAC. 

Pacific ocean perch ....................... 96.1% of the TAC. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish ..................... 89.6% of the TAC. 

Central GOA ................................................................ Pacific cod ..................................... 4.4% of the TAC. 

Pacific ocean perch ....................... Subject to regulations in subpart G to this part. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish ..................... Subject to regulations in subpart G to this part. 

Northern rockfish ........................... Subject to regulations in subpart G to this part. 

Western GOA .............................................................. Pacific cod ..................................... 2.0% of the TAC. 

Pacific ocean perch ....................... 99.4% of the TAC. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish ..................... 76.4% of the TAC. 

Northern rockfish ........................... 100% of the TAC. 

TABLE 38 TO PART 679.—GOA AMENDMENT 80 SIDEBOARD LIMIT FOR HALIBUT PSC FOR THE AMENDMENT 80 SECTOR

In the . . . 

The maximum percentage of the total GOA halibut PSC limit 

that may be used by all Amendment 80 qualified vessels subject 

to the halibut PSC sideboard limit in each season as those seasons are established in the annual harvest specifications is . . . 

Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 

Shallow-water species fishery as defined in § 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(A) in the GOA 

or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.

0.48% ...... 1.89% ...... 1.46% ...... 0.74% ...... 2.27% 

Deep-water species fishery as defined in § 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B) in the GOA or 

adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 

fishing season.

1.15% ...... 10.72% .... 5.21% ...... 0.14% ...... 3.71% 

TABLE 39 TO PART 679.—AMENDMENT 80 VESSELS THAT MAY BE USED TO DIRECTED FISH FOR FLATFISH IN THE GOA 

Column A: 

Name of Amendment 80 vessel 

Column B: 

USCG 

Documentation 

No. 

ALLIANCE ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 622750 

AMERICAN NO I ................................................................................................................................................................................. 610654 

DEFENDER ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 665983 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 52743 

TABLE 39 TO PART 679.—AMENDMENT 80 VESSELS THAT MAY BE USED TO DIRECTED FISH FOR FLATFISH IN THE

GOA—Continued 

Column A: 

Name of Amendment 80 vessel 

Column B: 

USCG 

Documentation 

No. 

GOLDEN FLEECE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 609951 

LEGACY .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 664882 

OCEAN ALASKA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 623210 

OCEAN PEACE ................................................................................................................................................................................... 677399 

SEAFREEZE ALASKA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 517242 

U.S. INTREPID .................................................................................................................................................................................... 604439 

UNIMAK ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 637693 

VAERDAL ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 611225 

TABLE 40 TO PART 679.—BSAI HALIBUT PSC SIDEBOARD LIMITS FOR AFA CATCHER/PROCESSORS AND AFA CATCHER

VESSELS

In the following target species categories as defined in § 679.21(e)(3)(iv) . . . 

The AFA catcher/ 

processor halibut 

PSC sideboard 

limit in metric tons 

is . . . 

The AFA catcher 

vessel halibut 

PSC sideboard 

limit in metric tons 

is . . . 

All target species categories ....................................................................................................................... 286 N/A 

Pacific cod trawl ........................................................................................................................................... N/A 887 

Pacific cod hook-and-line or pot .................................................................................................................. N/A 2 

Yellowfin sole ............................................................................................................................................... N/A 101 

Rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish 1 ........................................................................................................ N/A 228 

Turbot/Arrowtooth/Sablefish ........................................................................................................................ N/A 0 

Rockfish 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... N/A 2 

Pollock/Atka mackerel/other species ........................................................................................................... N/A 5 

1 ‘‘Other flatfish’’ for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species, except for halibut (a prohibited species), Greenland turbot, rock sole, flathead 

sole, yellowfin sole, and arrowtooth flounder. 2Applicable from July 1 through December 31. 

TABLE 41 TO PART 679.—BSAI CRAB PSC SIDEBOARD LIMITS FOR AFA CATCHER/PROCESSORS AND AFA CATCHER

VESSELS

For the following crab species in the following 

areas . . . 

The AFA catcher/ 

processor crab 

PSC sideboard 

limit is equal to 

the following 

ratio . . . 

The AFA catcher 

vessel crab PSC 

sideboard limit is 

equal to the following ratio . . . 

Multiplied by . . . 

Red king crab Zone 1 ............................................. 0.007 0.299 The PSC amount in number of animals available 

to trawl vessels in the BSAI after allocation of 

PSQ established in the annual harvest specifications for that calendar year. 

C. opilio crab (COBLZ) ........................................... 0.153 0.168 

Zone 1C. bairdi crab ............................................... 0.14 0.33 

Zone 2C. bairdi crab ............................................... 0.05 0.186 

[FR Doc. 07–4358 Filed 9–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2